,+ S$

'w..B. This is a Working Paper circulated f o r comment and criticism only. It docs not represent tha final vievs of the LEGJ Cormission.

14th June 1968

127-1 38-01

TH3 ACTIONS FOR

LOSS OF SZRVICES, LCSS OF COWSORTIUN,

1. these topics, further and wider consultations before reachk.g final conclusions. we set out in this Vorlcing Paper the questions to which we are anxious to obtain answers and the provisional conclusions so far as we feel ourselves in a position to reach any. conclusions is to be found in the para,mphs of t l e Appendix cited below.

Earlier consultations have revealed the need for further tlought on The difficulties are such that we think it necessary to have

Accordingly

The reasoning that lies behind these questions and

The Employer's Action for Loss of Services

2. Questions:-

( 3 )

(4)

(5)

If the employer's right to damages for loss of services is to be abolished shoulf3 anything take its place? (paras, 9-22)

Would it in fact be likely to lead to a greater readiness to continue payment of wages during injury o r to more generous sick-pay arrangernents if employers were given a right to recover such payments from the tortf easor? (paras. 1 5-21 ) If some new right should be provided, should this take the form of a right by the employer to recover by action from the tortfeasor payments which he has made that have reduced the damages which would othcmise have been recoverable by the employee? (paras. 24-29) Alternatively, should the victim be entitled to recover damages from the tortfeasor without deduc-Lion of payments made to him by the employer?( paras. 30-40)

Alternatively, should the victim be entitled to recover, without deduction of paynents made to him by his employer, save to the exter,t of one-half the value of such papents reczived or receivable within five years of the accidont? (para.41) If the answer to (4) or (5) is in the affirmative, shoulll the victim be

obliged to restore such payments to his ernployer? If the ansver to question (3) or (6) is in the affirmative, what ought the lavi to be when the damages recoversd by the employee are reduced because of his contributory negligence? Should vhatevcr solution is adopted regarding employers apply equally to benefactors, other than the State, who have mitigated the victim's damage? (para.41)

(paras.30-40)

(paras.25, 35 and 36)

1.

3. Provisional Conclusions

Subject to reconsideration in the light of answers to these questions, our provisional conclusions (see paragraphs 42-44 of the Appendix) are: -

(a) The cmployer's right to damages f o r loss of services should be abolished. But an emyloyee nho has been unable to work because of a tortious injury should be entitled to recover damages in respect of earnings f o r the period of absence p r i o r to the trial nhetlia o r not he has received remuneration, pension or siclc pay from his eniployer o r axyone else. An employee should be cntitlsd to reccvcr damages in respect of paplcnts made for nedical attention p r i o r to the trial whether the payments vcrc

made by him or by h i s employer or anyone else. HOVCVCI, in assessing his damages €or l o s s of future earnings, account should be taken of any paymcnts arising out of his employment vhich he will or may receive (zxcept as provided in the La17 Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948) but not of payments unrelated to his cclploymnt, such as proceeds of an insurance policy which he has taken out or' voluntary contributions by friznds or rclations. SiLiilarly, in assessing damages f o r future medical attention account should bc taken of any right arising out of his cmployncnt to have those paid bu-t, again, not of any right unrelated to the employment. .;rhcrc payments under (a) or (b) have Sccn nade to cr on behalf of the victim by his emTloyer o r othcr third party, the lan should not provicl any definite right te recoupment from the victim. This shculd be l e f t

to be worked out bcbmcn the victim and the benefactor, either

prcspcctivcly ( f c r example under conditions of cnployncnt) or retro- spectively after t'nc victim has rccovzre& from the tortfeasor.

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Family Losses

4. Questions:-

(1) If a husband's right to damagcs for l o s s of his wife's society and

services or loss of a child's scrviccs is to bc abolished, is it acccptsd that a nevr right shculd t a b its place? (paras.46-48)

If so:-

(2) Is it acccptcd that, in so €si. as rclativcs have made payments c r CO ferred benefits which mitigate tha damcp of tho victim, such p a p e

or benefits should contiliuc to be disregarded in assessing his dam I?nd that tlis victin should not bc under ,any legal obli&ation to yes

to the rclstives unlcss the court othcxvise directs? (para.50) As regards othcr losses incurred by xxibers of the family, is it accepted th2-t pdcuniary lossos should be recoverable from the

(3)

2.

tortfcasor whtlthcr they a r i se f r o m - * (a) (b)

v i s i t s t o the victim's s ick bed

the need t o lock a f t e r thc v i c t k i or t o secure the perf ormnce of the donestic r o l e pri.viously perf orriled by hin;

f inanc ia l dcpcndency on thc victim? (paras.49 a d L 52-61) ' (c )

(4) As regards thcse pccuniery losses, i s i t ncceiAxd tha t clainants ( i n

e i thc r f a t a l o r non-fatal cases) should not be rcs t r ic tcd t o 2 defi-

n i t e l y prescribed class? (paras.53, 54, 57,C' .:. ':- 61) %:-t should be the posit icn regarding ncn-pccuniary losscs flci-ring

(a) from dsprivation of domestic sGrvices companionship and

(b) frcm grief?

(5)

parental cam, and

Should Yfiere bc

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

( iv )

(v)

no recovcry a t a l l i n e i the r fatal or non-fatal cams (para.68),

rcccvcry only cf a fixed SUL? by the e s t a t e of a deceased victim (para.69)

rcccvery up t o a prescribed nzxiiun swi i n respect o f both (a) and (b) (para.70)

rccovcry without any prescribed inaxinum (para.71), or recovery i n rcspcct of (?-) but not (b) (para.72)?

(sec paras. 73-75) Is it acceytcd tha t i f non-pecuniary f a i l y losses m r e ccccverablc iii

fa ta l casw the dacczsed's onn claiin for non-pecuniary loss should not

survive fGr the bcilcfit of his es ta te? (paras.7C-72) . ...

Is it acccptc-d thnt, i f non-pecuniary fan i ly losses nerz rccovmabls,

they should nc t survivc f Gr rho benef it clf thc c l a h a n t ' s .:state <pars, 75)

( 6 )

( 7 )

(8) . A s regards proceduri., i s i t acccptc.d that of the f c u r possible il!ethodS

(r2ccvery by the v i c t i c , i n l iv idu r l c l a i m by each :.laber o f the family,

a system analogous t o tha t under the Fatal liccidcnts Act, and a rcpre-

sentativc action) a genzraliscd proccdurc similar t o that under the

Fatal Accidents Act -~ould bc the best soluticn? If S G , should the

other members of tlne family be en t i t l ed t o apply t c be jcincd as p l a i n t i f f s i n an action by the v i c t in , and afteri-;hat period cf ltelay

by the victim should they bc c n t i t l d t o bring proceedings indepcndciltly

o f him? (paras. 77-84) Should t'nc amunts rcccvmable by thc fan i ly be reduced proportionately

t o any contributory nogli.gmce cjf th victim? (para.85) ( 9 )

5. Provisional Conclusions

Subject t o rcconsidnat ion i n th2 l i gh t o f a n s x r s t o thcse qucstions

o u r provisional conclusions (sec paras, 86-87) are: -

a The husband's right to dmages for l o s s of the n i f e ' s society and

scrviccs o r cf a chi ld 's servicc should 'sc abolished.

I n the victim's claim for dznagss against tlic tor t fcasor , pqments o r

other boiiefits received by hin from relat ives or other benefactors

should be ignored;..but t b c c m t . & ~ q l d h8.x _pg:Je-r _g--a?p.cp)riaJ~ cases

t o give dirocticns c r t s obtein undertzkings rezarding restoration t o

thc benefactor (paras.41 and 50).

Other pccuniary losscs suffcxtcd 'oy xcmbers cf the family as a r e su l t c f

the injury t c the victim shculd be rccoverablc vrhethcr or not the

in jur ies are f a t a l (paras.52-61).

R ~ C G V S ~ ~ should Extend t c the reesonablc cost cf such v i s i t s t o the

victim's hospi ta l o r sick-bed 2s ncrc naturally t o be expected i n the circumstances (paras. 52-54). Claimants should not be ros t r ic ted t c a pxscr ibsd class of re la t ives

and clcpenhnts; anycna who has suffored pecuniary l o s s which flowed frm

o r was a reasonable conscqucnce Gf tho nrongful injury o r death should

be en t i t l ed t o recover (paras. 53, 54, 57 md 60)

We have, as yet , fcrmed- no ccncludel: v i m on vhethar non-pecuniary

losses should bc rccovaablc and, i f sc , t o what extent and on nhnt

basis (paras. 6 9 75). If non-pecuniary less i s to be r-.covcrable it n i l 1 be necessary t o prcs-

cribe ths c lzss cf rc1ativc.s and dependants en t i t l ed t c claim, unless

e i ther

(i) ncn-pxuniary losses ars res t r ic ted t o fatal cases and arc conpcnsatd by -a phymcnt cf a- fixed s m to--the-deccasicd' s es ta te , or

claims arc limited t J t hms who have also suffered ;mxnicry loss,

(ii)

If a class i s nrescribed it should proba&ly exclude infant children

(pars. 74) If non-pocuniary losszs of re la t ives an6 desendants are t o be reccver-

able on any basis , thc v i c t i n ' s claim f o r non-pecuniary l o s s i n fatal

cases should net survive f o r the bcnefit of h i s es ta te (paras.

70-72). pecuniary l o s s survive f o r the bcncfit o f h is es ta te (para.76).

Thc. bsst solution t o the problom of reducing multiplicity cf claims

(paras.77-84) night be tcj apply t c non-fatal cases a sinlilar procedure

t o thz t under the Fatal Accidents Act vhercby only one action can be

brought on behalf o f all tncse en t i t l ed t G claim.

be brought by tlic v i c t in but rrhore he ddzyed unreasoncbly any o r a l l

Ror shculd th? c l a k of the relat ive o r dependant f o r non-

(j)

This should normally

claimants should be en t i t l ed tc insti- tutc one action on behalf of a l l

tlioso cn t i t l cd ( p u s s . 8 0-8 2)

4.

(k) The victim's ccntributory ncgligencc should reduce the mount rccovcrablc.

(pars, 85) Seduction

6. d-amagcs f o r the scduction of h i s m a r r i z d i n f m t daughter (m othcr fcmale

servant) sliould be abolished and nct rcplaced by any othcr czusc of action

vcstcd i n him (para.68).

Our conclusion is tha t the f a t h m ' s (or oth2r master's) r i gh t t o

Znticcrrent cr Xarbourinp;

7. (Paras 89-92)

Thc exis t ing r igh t t o damzcs shouX also be f i n a l l y abolished

Comments

8. Wc shall be mos t &grateful i f those t o nhcn t h i s i s circulated - , r i l l l e t

us havc thi.ir vievis by 3 j s t December.

w i l l be interestcd i n parts cnly o f thc Fapcr, but we s h a l l par t icu lar ly vrelccinc.

t h e i r viens on thz par t s which d i r cc t ly concern then mC:. upcn which they havc

prac t ica l expcrience.

enploycrs an2 c-mployccs v i l i be ablc t o h d p us by ansvrcring thc questions rcLisLd

i n paragraph 2 abovs,

It i s spprcciated tha t many recipients

I n par t icu lar v.re hopo tha t bodies rcpresentative o f

9. Coimants sliculd p lmsc bd addrcsscd to :

Michael Parlirington, Esq. Thc LaT: Comissicn, Laccn House, Thoobalds 2oad, Laiirlon , W. C .I .

Tcl: 01-40? 8700, Ektn.229

14 June 1968

5.

A P P E E D I X

TEE ACTIOTTS FOR LOSS OF SERVICES, LOSS OF COKSORTIUM

SZDUCTIOX AND EDTICE<m?P

Contents

INTRODUCTION

B:PLOY%RS' ~~&CTIC!K RIP, LOSS OF SrnVICES

Possibility I - Indcpcndent right of action by

Possibility I1 - SubroGXtion Possibility I11 - Rccovery fron tortfeasor b Provisional Conclusions

employer

r the oqloycc

HUSBAND'S ACTIGN FOR LOSS OF WIFE'S SOCIETY AKD SXVICES OR OF CHILD'S SERVICES

Introduction Typss o€Fanily Lossos

(i) Payncnts in Mitigation (ii) Hospital visits

Cthor 1>suniary lossos not based on depcndmcy Economic lossx based on dependency

parent2.1 carc (vi) Solatim for grief

(iii)

(iv) (v) Loss of services, conpanionship

Possibli. Solutions to thc Problcms raiscd by (v) and (vi)

Fom of Action Sffect of contributory negligence Provisional Conclusions

ENTICEKDTT OF SPOUSZ OR IXFAITT DAUGHTER

6.

Para. Nos,

1 - 8

9 - 45

24

25 - 27

30 - 41

42 - 45

46 - 87

46 - 48

49 - 67

50 - 51 52 - 54

55 - 57 58 - 61

62 - 65 66 - 67

68 - 76

77 - 84

85

86 - 87

88

89

90 - 92

IHTRCDUCTION

1. I t en XV of thc L2L-j Comission's 7irst Progmrmc reacls as f o l l o n s :

Euch of English l m i s liz.avily owr la id x i t h histcry. This does not nem tha t tliz p i n c i p l c s i1ivo7-V~d nay nct s t i l l be applicable Ln f i i m k m ccr?_<itions, subjzet tc neccsszq adjust- m n t s from t i ne tc ; ~ir-1~7. Tiicrc a r c 7 hci;:;cver9 ccr ta in par ts or" the ltm.which s3em t o rcst on social assuqptions which are no longcr x d i 2 o r t c invzlvz archaic procochrcs. below ccnst i tute only a first l i s t of such na t t s r s uhich would appear t c c a l l f o r attciiticn.

(a)

The topics nei?tioned

Zcticms f o r 1Gss o f serviccs, loss cf consortiun, scchctiqn, enticsnant ail6 harbmring, an2 the extent t c vdiich employers spouses cr parents should bc cn t i t l cd t o recover nagcs cr pay- ments made to o r 3n behalf of m i.rnployc.c, spouse, o r chi ld , as the case m y be, ;The; i s the victim Gf a t o r t .

for r G f G m , i n t h Clcvcfith Rcpor t of the Law Reform Cmaitti.e (1963 CLnd.2017)

These matters havc bcsn thc subject of a cktaileG survey, a i t h pro;>osals

................................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................

................................................................ ............................................................. ...........................................................

2, disposed of rapidly.

notably with the Confcdaraticn o f Br i t i sh InSustry, provisional proposcils m r c

prepared conce-mirig Item ( a ) , x i t h Ty-rhich alone th i s paper i s concern&, and

sa2t i n Xarch 15'65 t c thc Bar Council, khs Imir Socicty, and the Society o f

P-iblic Teachcrs of Law f o r t h e i r ccments.

swatllarised as %c.lloi-~s :

It vas hoped tlmt cach cf thc tcgics referred t c in I ten 1XV riight bc

I",cci;rdingly a f t e r a l i r n i t & a9ount o f cutside ccnsultation,

These provisional pro-posals c m 'oc

(a) The a b c l i t i m of the zction fm lcss of serviccs vhcthcr by an elq$c;y\=r,

a s-puse or a parcnt.

(b) The abolit ion of ths acticn f o r lcss ctf concortiwn.

(c) The &cl i t ion c.f the acticn f c ' r seduction. . .

(6)

(c)

The ahc;liti.cn of thc acticns for ciiticenont zrd harbcuring. Frovisi.cn enabling ul injured person to recovsr the' reasonable

zxpcnses incurmd by a s ~c us ~, parent fir nenber G f the household

. .

7.

4- This l a s t proposal was based on thc cc;nccyL of a f m i l y pool t o bc replsnisiiec?

by action taken on bshalf of the ilpzml'l by the injured pcrscn.

3. ,Is a rosul t o f the conmnts r c c e i v d i n r c s p n s e t o these proposals

the Lavr Comissicn hzs ccxludel! that it i s nct possiblo t o dispose o f t'no

questicns involve6 as rapit-ly or as sumar i ly ZS ha3 original ly boon hopcd, m,2

-that fur ther mc? widar ccnsul ta t i ,n i s csscnt ia l bcforc any f i r n prcposals c m

-be fclrnulatecl. As l-ic s a i l i n our Scccnd immal Rcport'l), thcrc are i n

par t icular tvro d i f f i c u l t quzsticns which requirc fur t lxc study:

If (i) v;hcthcr <U? employer should have a rmedy a g a h s t the tortfcasor i n respect of i;ages yaid t o the victirn of the t o r t , h i s eu2loyee, during thc p r i o d cf incapacity, md the sccpc cf any such rcrnccly;

what provis im the l a v s1iculC n a h t o give a rcrncdy against the tortfcasor t o xenbcrs Gf the v i c t i n ' s f a s i ly or cthcrs who incur expense c r sur"for l o s s i n aiding G r comforting hjni:;.hilc incapacitatd-."

(ii)

11s vre ad$&: I1Our provisional cpinion i s that the mcicnt coixmn law remedies, though they aro inadcquato Land i n soiLic! respects clzarly do r e f l ec t social assmptions which arc no iongm accc$xblc, cannot safcly be svrcyt away u n t i l thcsc: tvro qucsticns arc satisfadc'rily cmst;-acd. ''

$ 3 ii 1

4* prepared and with somewhat d-iffcrent provisioiial prqrsals.

la ted f a r mcire vric?ely a d - . i n par t icular t c bodies re?rcsentative,of mploy3rs

and kiployees ( in v i a{ cjf t he i r esl;ocial in tc rcs t i n tlrlz first of thc two questions rcfsrrcc t o sbovo) , mii G f imurance in tc rcs t s .

5. by the L m Elcfmr:l Comiittee m19 i n p a t , by th? Lavr iiefcm Cc-mi'ctee f c r

Scctland.

The ;:resent papm i s accordingly ai cximnded vcrsion of that original1

It i s bsing circu- 1

Thc ba t tc rs clealt n i t h i n t h i s paper linvc previously bcen considcrcd

The f c r ix r i-Tas invitcd i n 1961 :

"To considar the des i rzb i l i ty of:

1. abolishing the r ight of action by a nastzr f o r thc l o s s o f h i s s c rvmt l s serviccs; mil

eilabling an cq loyc r t o rzcovar dcmages f o r l o s s suffered by hiu i n consequencc G f a wrong donc t o h i s cmployoe by a th i rd person."

2.

I

Tllc second qusstion only nas also rcTcrrcd t o the Law R G f G m Co-mittce f c r

ScotlanZ.

unaninously rocomiendcd tho abcl i t icn of thc r ight o f action i n all i t s aSpi.CtS, '1

sllbject t c a r ight t o eit1ic.r spousi. t c recclver cxi3enses incurred as a resu l t [ o f t o r t i o u s injury t o thc cthor or t o a depciicknt chi ld , 3ut , by a rnajcrity,

the vieiv that an emlover should bc givcn a l i n i t cd r igh t of r e c c v ~ r y ( ~ ) , On th??

i ,

1 Both Ccl;unittces rcpcrti.6 i n 1 963(2). Tne Lam Rcfom Cormittcc

1

f

1. L m COD. No.12, para.33,

2.

3. CmC.2017 (&gland) and C:.2.1997 (ScctlanZ).

C m d . 201 7, paras. 5-1 6 .

othcr hanc!, thc LaVj Ecforn Ccniittcc: for Scotlmd, zgcesing v i t h ths Zhglish

a inc r i ty , rccor?;icnclcl: t ha t l@sla t ion shculd not bc intrcGuccd t o cnablc rn cnploycr t o recovm.

6. main bctssd upon on2 coxmn principle, n z x l y the t a i.lastcr i s en t i t l ed t o sue

The various actions a i t h nhich t h i s p2pc.r i s concerned arc i n thc

anyone vho kauscs hki t o suffor l o s s by wrcngfcliy depriving hin o f thc scrvices

of h i s sci-vant. This includes the loss o f the rml o r lioticnal scrviccs o f

pcrscns who nculd not i n nodern ccnditions bc r2gmdc.d as a man’s sorvants, such

as h i s n i f e mi: chilcren.

relationships thd s c c p o f thc zction i s very narrovr, f c r i n r x e n t years it has bccn confincc t o injury donc t o thcsc T J ~ G usecl t o bc! dcscribed as ncnial

This r e s t r i c t ion has not y s t bccn aclqtcd- by the High Court of ~ u s t r a l i a ( ~ ) o r

On th2 cthcr hanc!, cutsi.de the range o€ thcsc f m i l y

s c v a n t s mfi who c‘an 5c rcgardcd 2s fcri.iing part of the nastcr’s houschcld (4) .

mcl has provoked advcrse conmcnt i n England (7) . As the Lair Fieforr,? ConTittoe 2ointcd out (8) : the Suprerie Court of

“no dzubt it i s opcn.to the Hcusc. o f Lords t o zxtcnd thc action t o any casc‘ i n which the ordinary r c l a t i m s h i ? of nnster a - d se rvmt cxints , though i t i s perhaps uil i lrcly tha t t h i s w i l l nov bc done”.

But thoy a?-dd:

“In any w e n t it is c lear that tht. action i s not available i n casm -diere th2 orGinary rslatioliship cf nas tc r ;?ni[ servant 602s i i G t ex i s t , for e x a q l z , vilicrc the injurzd n a n i s a p l i c e ccnstnblc ( 9 ) , o r a c i v i l servant ( 10).

That, hovevcr, i s a l e s s sorious l i n i t a t i o n vhich wmld s t i l l leave thi. ac t icn

suf f ic ian t ly viable t o plzy a r:zle i n tho i.cononic l i f e o f thc 20th Century.

But if rcs t r i c t cd , as it sc‘em t c bc, t o nenial SciTalltS, i t can un6cr ;iioC:orn

conditions havc l i t t l e o r no application outside the d m e s t i c spherc.

anomlous 1initatic.n i s that tlicrc i s no r igh t t c Gmagos i f thc servant i s

k i l l e d instead cf nzr;.ly injured("). bc a causc of action on behalf of cor ta in close r e l a t ives , i-iho suf fer l o s s

thereby, under thc Fatal I*LccidCiLtS Acts 1846-1959.

A fur ther

I n the svcnt of c?cath, honcvar, tlieri. :Jay

4. 5. 6 . 7. 8. Cnncl.2Ol7, para.2.

9.

10.

11..

Inland Bz-venue Cornrnissioncrs v. Rar?hrook r1956-j 2 Q.B. 641. Comiissionr;r f o r Raili-rays (AT.S.Y0) $. Scott (1959) 102 C.L.R. 392 (8nginc C r i v c ;

- Lttorncy Gcncral v. Eykorak cl9623 Sup.Ct.331; 33 B.L.R. 2d. 373 (sold-ier).

GooZlicrt (1955) 71 L.Q.3. 308; Sa7wi.r (1955) 18 i6.L.R. 488.

. .

’

Lttorney Gancral f m Kew South Y/alos v. Porpctual Trustoe Co. [1955] A.C.

I n l a d Rcvcnuc Cozmissioncrs v. Hmbroclr (su;;;ra).

khira1t:y Ccrmissionors v. S.S. ii!-Jdrika [I9171 :&.C. 38 S.L.

457 P.C.

9.

7 . A t prcscnt , thorsforc!, a rencdy is available i n the fcllowing

tlie sc2uctic;n v i i l l not be an actionable assault.

10.

(5) It is actionable tc: i n h c c ~t servant t o lcavc h i s igastsr's mFloyncnt

vrcngfully o r , ii' i l l e g a l r.ic5ns zirc usecl, t o leave his onploynent cvon

rightfully.

vhc has l 2 f t h i s nastar ' s crnployncnt i-rrcngfully.

S i a i l a l y 7 it i s sctiana5lc t o harbour mothor' s scrvca.nt

"his typc of a c t i m

fo r cnticencnt r,r harbouring i s f c r all prect ical purposes extinct.

It i s a l s o sctionablc t c entice mray c1r harbour a spouse o r infant

child,

It i s soacwbat s i n i l a r i n function t o m. action f o r Cmagos fo r

adultery (15) 3ut Gnticencnt iloos nc;t rzquire prcef of azultcry a

vrifc c m suc fcr anticczcnt ( I 6 ) ;:hsrcas only the husband c m sue f o r

dxiages fijr ZGultcmJ.

( 6 ) Thz e c t i m s t i l l has sonc l i f c as rcspocts cnt icewnt o f a nifc;.

TG thz cxtcnt thct thc n i f e c;u1 sue hcr h s : h i - d - ' e

ent iccr , thc action secas no longer t o bo basad solely on tne concc2'c

of l o s s of the servic2s t o nhicii 2 mastdr i s cnt i t lcd.

8.

which ought to bc abalislicC WJC have n3 doubt ( I 7 ) ,

opinion o f thc Lau 3.icforn Colmittcc a n c l vias tlie v i w taken (v i th sonc qual i f i -

cations) by t n o B a CO-mcil, thc Council o f the Law Society md the Soci,?ty of

Public Teachers of L w when vjc yrcviously consulted then.

(with tlie pa r t i a l excsTtion o f cnticcncr,t) arc based upon the archaic notion

that a man has some s o r t of prcyrictary interest i n h i s servant, wife o r i n f a t

daughter, The problcn, howvcr, i s vhcthcr onc c m abolish tflc various actions

based on the ccjncept of loss G f scrvicm aitllout su3st i tut ing sonc other r e !~ iS - i~s

i n t h e i r place.

s i tuat ions rofcrreS! t:! i n the prcvious paragraph.

That thess variaus r;xo$ies i n the i r prcscnt f o m arc anachronism

This wxs the unminous

X l thc roneilics

- . -_ !de zcccrdingly turn t o a consideraticn o f the s ix diffarent

(1 ) B:=PLOYmS' LOSS OF SZEVIC@ . .

Vc think it Y J G U ~ C bo gciiorally accapted that there c m at the present . .

9. day be l i t t l c justific3"tic.n f c r en t i t l i ng an ciployer t o a renedy rgerely bccaus.2

sorimne' s 7;i-irongful ac t has ~?epsivccl thc a!nplcycr, ti .rqorarily o r pcmanontly , of the .szrviccs of his cqlcyGe,

' relationship thzt various cvcnts nay G C C U ~ vrhich : r i l l rcndcr the ~nployae

incapable cf vorlcing,

It i s an accepted r i s k of thc erqloymiit

I i o ~ that YK arc a l l l i ab le t o be injured at m y t inc by

I- - 15. N.C.L. '1965, s.41,

16. Gray v. Gee (1923) 35 T.L.E. 429; Muntcn v. Hardy (1933) 149 L.T. 165;

L . C . 716 a t 729 por Lord Goddnrd, C . J .

It has hccn sugges td thnt a doctor xho pcrfome2 a s t e r i l i s a t ion O p r 2 t i , X on a vri'fe or terplinated her y;r;&ancy, vithcut the husbad ' s consent', might be l i ab lc to. the husband and that t h i s l i a b i l i t y nay be based on th.2 act ion f o r loss of s c n i c e s . such l i a b i l i t y ( m C yrobably s h d C not be) arid (b) tha t VJCTC there 'my suck: l i a b i l i t y it could not ?ossibly bc ~ ~ o u n 2 i . C on thi; action f o r l o s s cf services.

Z1lict.k v.. lilbcrt [A9341 1 E..B. 650, $.;I.; , B e s t V. S r n ~ ~ l POX-. .Ltd. [I9521

17.

Tc. a r e cf the opinion (a) that there i s no

hazards such 8s the motorcar, thc r i s k tha t an cq1oyc.e nay bc i n j u r d rrro@ulb

( f o r exanplc 3y scmecns's ncgligcnt driving) is rcgsrded as one of the nomal risks which an c q l o y c r accepts.

valuable t o thc crqlcycr, th lettsr can a.nL should insure against the r i s k ci' h i s Seath or injury.

for l o s s of services nerely i n o r k r t c csi-1pcnsatc m employm f o r l o s s of an cnployec's scrvices.

If the cnployee's scrvices iLlle uniquely

Hcncc '::o sce no j u s t i f i c a t i o c f o r rc ta in ing the act ion

10. to pay h i s crqloyoe Guring the pmiod vhan the l a t t e r is am,y injurcd ( o r t o

pay for nedical a t t en t ion ) , nay thcreby rcducc the dmages payable by the pzrscn

vrho has vrrcngfully injured the mployce.

t h a t , i f an c q l o y c e i s cn t i t l ed t o receivo ~ n g c s o r a pcnsion during his absmcz

bwause of injury, the aincunt roceived rcduccs h i s claim against the vmongdoer

On the othor h ~ ? , d , it S C E ~ S wrong tha t a good cnployer who continucs

A t prcsent the posi t ion i n 3glm2 i s

for damages for l o s s of sarnings (18)

""he gcneral rule i s tha t the injurcd par ty should give c red i t f o r all s u m which ho rcccivcs i n cliininution o f his l o s s , save t h a t there crs exceptional cases (such as insurance benefi ts) f - ur which he need not give credit". ( 1 9 )

Thus he riust give c red i t f o r wagss and iJensions xhich he i s cn t i t l cd t o receive

(whetha the p?nSiGn bc contributcry or non-contributory (2~) ) and uncmploymnt bcncfi t (21) , but not, q p a r c n t l y for insurance Scncfi ts undcr a policy o f

as surLmce (22) , whclly voluntary b ~ n c f i t s ( * ~ ) or suppleacntxry S e m f i t s r s c e i v d

f ron the Sup2lc:ncntary Bencfits C o x a i s s i p (24). I:rs regzrds other i m p a n t s

rccoived undzr nat ional iiisurmcc, on? half only of thess has t o bc taken i n t o

account (25) . Xiat the posi-tion i s as rcgcrds p a p c n t s rcceivcd unc!cr optional

as o ~ j p o s c ~ t G conp l sc ry pcnsion schcacs i s u n ~ e t - t l c d ' ~ ~ ) . The pr inciple bChinc?'

18.

19. 20.

21

22

23.

24 25 26

But not , ap-arcntly, i f i t i s r c h c i b l c a t pleasure; [I9641 1 W.L.R. 345; Z l s t o b v. Rcbiiiscn, ibid. 726. i,llen Vest [I9593 1 W.L.2. 554) C.A. , xhcrc i t aas hcl6 tha t a V G l u n t a r s .

C a r r o l l v. Iloopcr But cf. Jcnner. V.

pcllsion nzs deductible i n a c h i n by dcpcnc!.ants under thc Fatal Lcciclonts Lcts. gratui ty" i s t c 5c d d u c t e d f ron a c l a i a unkr thc Batal Acciclents Lcts or thc Carriage by Air Act: see Fata l ,xciilcnts Act 1959, s.2. Parsons v. 3.N.x. Laboratories, Ltc l . , [79641 I Q.B. 95? C.A.

Bradburn v. Great ';Tcstmn Railway Co. (1874) L,R. 10 B. 1. L i f f m v. ;-[atsoil [19403 I K.B. 556, C.L.

Foxleg V. Clton [I9651 2 Q.B. 306. LEJ h f o r n (Tcrsonal I n j u r i a ) i c t 1948, s.2(1).

Scc p g Salnon L.J . [I9681 1 Q.Ba at 20y9 210.

Ec-;~cvdr, sincz 1959 no " i i isuranc~ ricncy, benefi t , pension o r

-

12.

. .

. .

tlic gcncral rulo i s c h a r cncugli; it is bascd- upn a s t r i c t adhcrencc t o tlw

ccm-jonsatoq theory of 2a,qages orqhasizcd i n Br i t i sh Transport Ccrinission v.

Gourley (27) . thc various exce2tions.

i s on appeal i n the House cf Lcrcls ancl i t nay bc tha t t h i s w i l l produce a chsn<c7

o r at l e a s t a c l r r i f i c a t i o n , of %hz p o s i t i m ,

strongly c r i t i c i s ed by Professor S t r s ~ t ' ~ ~ ) , v?ho also ;Lr@ss tha t it rrculd S t i l l

5c open t o the Giglish ccurts t o a l l c u rzcovery cn the Sasis of l o s s of earning capacity, ra thar than f o r 1;ss o f thc \7ipvg2s thcasc-lves as special danages.

di f fe ren t principle has been adoptcil i n thc U.S.L. wham it i s generally

accopted tha t a l l co l l a t c rn l boncfits ' ir,cluc?ing nagm ant: pcnsions are t o bo

d i s r c g s ~ r d e d ( ~ ~ ) .

talccc in to account (31) but not : ~ c n ~ i o n s ( ~ ~ ) i

holds t h a t c red i t has t o bc givcn fc r such part of a pcnsion as rcprcscnts th2

enployer's contribution but ilct for tlis yortion rcpr'i.sonting thc cn2loyee's

It i s not howver easy t o dctcct any cszsis tent principlc bohind

Parry v. Clcavcr(28), the l a t e s t case on th i s subject,

Ths gcncral p5ncip lo has bcen

A

I n Lustral ia , the High Court has held that -,7agcs have t o be

In Canada, a Saskntchcvmn ccse

( 3 3 )

11 The onc valuable r c su l t nhich the action f o r loss of services night achiovt? i f cxtendcd beyon6 thc rcaln of nenial scrvctn.ts vrou16. bc t o enable the

crqloycr t o recover f rcn the tz r t fmsor ' ths w:Jagss md other bm.cfits tha t he

has pais-, t h a c b y counterbalancing tho r d u c t i o n of the mount o f danages pyl'?;lc

t o the victim of t hz t o r t by' thc t o r t f a e s o r .

action f o r l o s s of scrviccs, the dar.iag'zs s h c d C be ac-asurecl by thc cost of

replacing ths services r s thc r than by the viages paicl t o the injured servant

It night bc? thought t ha t i n CUI

(34)

27 28.

29

30.

31

32 .- 3 3 .

34

[I9561 L . C . 185, H.L.

Hcmner tha t nay be, the CO

by the master s o long as the .master was legally l iab le t o pay(35). Lccordingly

fac t allowed recovery of the wagR?aiL

had the action fo r l o s s o f scrviccs remaincd gznsrally available it woull! have

pxvided a n aclequatc mans of "shift ing the l o s s s o that while -the injured party

i s not enriched, the t o r t f o a s o r i s ncithor relieved of any of h i s burden nor yet exyosed t o any a2ditional burden" ( 3 6 ) , This, broa?Jy, i s s t i l l achievcd iii'

Australia. England, on the othor h a d , avoids exposing the tortfccsor t o .my

d d i t i o n a l burden (as occurs i n those ;mcric=m s ta tes which al lcv the injurc3

party t o rccovcr vrithcut giving credi t f o r wages actually rcccivcc? ar,d alsc:

allows the enploycr t o rccovcr i n an action f c r l o s s of sxv iccs ) but re1icvc.s

the tor t feasor of par t of h i s 5urdcn.

injured party shall givo c red i t f o r nagss reccivcd and that (exccpt i n the case

of mnial scmants) there sha l l be no action f o r l o s s of services by the

exployer.

unjust enrichment .

This it does by ins i s t ing tha t the

$Tor c m the employer recover from the tortfeasor on the basis cf (37)

12. Various expedients c m be adopted whereby the criploycr can pay wagss

without thereby reducing the danages payable by the tortfeasor.

makes paynents t o the enployee vrhich a rc purely voluntary and i n the nature of

g i f t s , it s e e m that thssc can bc disregarded in the employee's claim for damgcs asainst thc tortfeasor.

solution from the employer's p i n t of viei-r.

t7ages t o be paid i n the form of a lcan which is t o be repaid i n clue course.

If the- crqloycr

In practice, hovicver, t h i s i s not a sat isfactcry

The be t te r alternative is f o r thc - Such loans , i f repayable i n my event, m i l l 2efinitely not reduce the damages rccovcmblc fron the tor t feasor by the employee; acccrdingly he m i l l bc ablc t o

repay the loan fron the dasnagcs recovered. But t h i s i s not a very s a t i s f m t c r y

solution ei thar ,

ungencrous l i gh t of a lender nit l i a r igh t of rccovcry froin the ez@cyc-e. i n all circumtaxczs.

ing t o pay your -<rages 5ut i f aiid v:hcn yox rc'covcr fron the third p r s o n 17ho

injured you I shall c x p 3 you t o rzpay".

strued as ixyosing a def in i te hga l obligztion t o refund provided that the

cnploycc rzcovxs from thc to r t fmsor , it smns t o 5e assumed i n Sngland that

the sums so a;tvanwd are not t c bs takcn into account i n rccluction of the

A good eiqloyer w i l l nclt wish t o appear i n the sonewhat

Xnat hc w i l l l-rcbalAy v m n t t o 3c a313 t o say i s "I a r ~ continu-

I f such an arrangenent can be con-

I 35. It sce9s that if vragcs arc psi6 voluntcoirily they are not rccovcrablc as

such but may be sone evihnci. of the value of the l o s t services: I.X.C. v. Hanbrook [I9561 2 Q.B. a t 667 ,and 672. the master nay be p e a t a r than Githcr the ccst of rei.lacenent scrvicc c r o f vegcs paid t o the injured servant and, i f s o , i t seems that t h i s additional l o s s c m also bc rccovcra?.: Xankin V. Scala Tlico6rone Co. [I9471 K.B. 257.

Receiver f o r Blctropolitan Police Dis t r ic t V. Croydon Coqoraticn E19571

In some circumstanccs the l o s s t o

36. Flening: op.cit. pp.1495, 1496.

37. . . .

2 Q.B. 154, CA.

14.

damages reccverc-ble 3y the victim f r o n the tort.€feasor (38). The ninority on

the Lax RafGrn ComTittce suggested that a term to t h i s cffcct should bc insortec!

i n contracts of mC: it i s 1ae-m that there are s m e schcnes which

do s3 prcvide(4-o). Revertlidcss d i f f i cu l t i z s T r i l l a r i s e i n the ovcnt cf the

danages recovere& by the er?:,loycc frm the tor t faaser being rcduccd because

Gf the caployce's contributcry negligence. I f the m ~ l o y e e recovers, say,

only helf his daiagcs, hc w i l l nevertheless be under a le@l l i a b i l i t y t o rzyay

the f u l l a n x n t of thc rmges advanced t o his c q l o y c r .

13. bctrmen employer and omployce i s construcd as s n t i t l i n g the cxylcyce t o h i s

wagss despite his absGncc, n i t h no norc than a moral obligation t o mfund if

his rccovery fron the tor t fczsor enables him t o do so1

cour t s have a 1 l o i - d the cmj?lcyec t o rzcover from the tor t feascr on giving ,U?

undataking that he vrculd r c p y the advmccs t o h i s eaployar(L?l). The power

to require such an undertaking has honcvcr been denied i n hs t ra l ia

Norcover i n thc l i g h t of the Zhglish ciccision i n Gagc V. I(ir1,4'~~), i t seems doubtful -.vhcthor recGvery f r o n the tor t feasor i s t ru ly pcmissible i n such

circumstances.

Thc l ega l pcsi t icn bccmcs s t i l l nor3 d i f f i c u l t i f the arrangcnent *

In some cases the b

(-2) .

1 ;. Those vho believe, as rnost nrrv Cc, that the sole cbject of damages i s

t o compensate the injured party m d not t o punish the wrongdoer, can argue

plausibly tha t there i s no o b j x t i o n t o a s y s t m which l o t s the t o r t f a s o r cr^f

nore l i gh t ly bccausc so.?eonc else 1iappcr.s t o have nitigatec! the vict i i i ' s lcss

If an criployer has done so because of gencrosity c r bocause he has bound hinsLif

by contract t o 20 s o , it can 'msai.2 tha t there i s no rcason why he "sli@uld rccciv,

a solatiwi by being givcn a nevr kind of r igh t of acticn" ( ' i -5 ) . Tho f ac t tha t tlis

( IXr)

38. But t h i s i s nct tlic v i w held by the ,;ustraliai High Court: Elunc?ell v. I'lusmavc (1956) 96 C.L.E. 73. ,',ccerdinc tc! that dccisicn there nust bc- a def in i te legal cblizatim to r G f u n c i v7hethi.r c r nct thcrs i s reccvcry fror, the tc r t fcasor , 5ut i f thzrc i s such an obligation it docs not n a t t e r t'ht the eqlloyer n i l 1 probably not enforce i t milcss the enployee succccds ~II

h i s claim against the tcrtIcasor. It 1.12~ Isc that a Cistinction should be dravm bctnecn an obligation t o rc€und i f any damgm are recovered froi2 the tor t fcasor znd an obligzition t o refund oiily i f dmages i n rilspcct of l o s t wages 2.re rccovcrcc?.

39. Cmd.2017, p.12.

40. For c x m ~ l e , thc Schcnc CP Conditions o f ScrvTce of the National Joint

Sec a l s o Lord Goddari! C.J . [I9561 2 Q.B. a t 656-7.

Council f o r Local Lutlioritics' ;dniqistrative, Professional, Technical an2 C l x i c a l Scrvicc-s.

Jrl. Dcnnis v. L.P.T.B. [1$.';8] 1 L l l E.B. 779. 42,

43. [I9611 1 Q.B. 188.

-T.-r. I A Sec IkGregor: Conpcsation Vcrsus Funishmmt i n Dana~es kards , (1 965) 28 M.L.R. 629.

45. C~~d.2017, a t p.12.

Slunrkll v. F.'iust;rave (1956) 96 C.L.H. 73 a t 9.:- (Fullager J.).

tor t feasor gains thmcby i s no mcre anomlous than the f a c t that i t is n c a l y clieaFcr t o k i l l somone than t o injure hin. The tor t feascr , it i s said, i s r,ot

unjustly bencfitod but m r c l y lucky tha t h i s nrong has not caused the v i c t i i

grcatcr 6aiagc. Teople's sense of jus t ice and that i n i t s e l f i s an cbjcction to it. those pcoplc unreasonable.

forcsceable f i n m c i a l l o s s grcatxr than the vrongdozr i s called upon t o bear.

It smacksof legal ?,?clantry t o argm t'nat tho loss lsorne by the erqloycr f lows,

not from t o r t , but fron thc o q l o y c r ' s c ? ~ i ~ n gencrosity 01 contract m d tha t the

t G r t i s not thc causa caiisans but rzsrely the causa sine qua lion cf the loss.

Hoxcver one looks at i t , the l o s s has becn suffered an< ncluld not havc becn

suffered but f o r the t o r t .

not bo able t c recovcr a l o s s which h2 hes voluntarily assmcc! (cf. para.9 a3ovz)

The f ac t i s , h o n m x , that thc 11roscnt rule does offcnd nmy

Nor are

The tmtious ac t of th? vrrongdocr has l ~ d t o actual

What can p-rhaps be sait i s tha t the e q l o y a shcu2.i

15. It seems self-cvicknt tha t thc public in te rcs t as well as tha

scctional in te res t s of enploycrs and cm7lcyces nould Scst 1x2 served i f :

(a) an enploycc continued t o receive h i s ya,-cs nctvrithstmding absbnce

from t70rlc baausc of injury;

thc m o u n t or" such wages TELS ult irmtely rccovcrecl fron the tor t feascr ; (b) and

(c) any m o u n t s o rccovcrcd V E S then r c s t o r d t o the enploycr.

From the point of view of the cnployce it is =ore sat isfactory that the ma@s should continue t o be yaid 5y the enploycr r a t h x than that the eqdoyee should

have t o t r y t o rccover then from the . . . tcrtfcasor.. The enployee'ncads his wa@s as they accmc and nomally c,annct afford t o wait f o r then u n t i l h i s act'ion i s

docidod o r se t t led ycxcs 1ati.r.

16. above aim.

,

. . . .._. .. - .. .... '' ' . , .

It is c h a r t ha t thc grcsent legal 2ositicn i s not concucivc t o thc

Tno law ~ G S S nct cncourag; enploycrs t o continui. t o pay wages. If they do s o , they m i l l not be ablc t o socovcr t h m f r o n the tortfcasor cxceilt on

the very rare c;ccasions when an action f o r l o s s of services i s available.

other c i rcmstmces , i f they pay w z p s the rcsu l t i s often t o prevent my'

reccivery i n that res7cct fron' thc tor t fcssor .

a l o a n t o 5e r;.fundcd whcn the enpioyce recovers f r aa the tortfcasor, Ciff i -

cu l t ies arise vhcn the cnyloyee's rccovay i s only pa r t i a l because c.f h i s OYM

contributory ncgligsnce,

r e s i s t my refund t o the employer.

f 7. position worse, except marginally: it nould have L~ effect .only i n the' rsrs casss

where the relntionship between a q l o y a a d criiploycc 2s such that an action f o r

l o s s of services i s a t present available t o thc cnploycr and i n these cascs wul?.

In

Even i f wages arc paid by diay cf

, .

In that cv'cfit tnc xqloyce o r ' h i s trade union . . may ., . . . . . .

The abol i t icn of the action for l o s s of serviccs would not make thc . . ..

remove the present incentive t o continue t o ?ay wages.

16.

4 On tha other hand, t h abc l i t i sn of the action, i-ihile it wculd rarely nakc the pcsi t ion 'I;'orsc, rrould cer ta in ly never naka the posit ion bct tcr .

lctr .~ is t o assist i n accox2lishinT the aim s e t out i n para.15, sone n m o r

iripovcd rencdy rust be providec.

i s whether nhat rc tua l ly cccurs n t prcscnt does substant ia l ly achicvc thosc aiss

(7-cspitc the inaikquacics of the L m .

par t iculzzly nelconc aclvice m c l in fcmzt ion €Erox boc?ics reprcsmta t ivc o f

cnploycrs and cxll;?loy.xs ( f o r C S ~ I ~ ~ L , thc C.B.I. 3mcl the T.U.C.).

If 'die

The f i r s t quosticn f c r deterilination thcrcfarc,

It is on t h i s point tha t ue would

19. and the Lax Refcrn Comit tec of Sco'dan2 alqcars t o have suggestoc', t h a t ,

yjhatevor the defzcts i n the lai:i, thc zc tus i pcsi t icn nas rearonably sat isfactcry.

Certain it i s tha t a t tha t t i n c tlic-: Br i t i sh T q l o y e r s Confederation ( m e o f t h s

!x.&as noi7 m c r g e d in to the C.B.I.) w r e o:)>osed t o any cli,ange i n the law bcyon?

a sinplc abol i t ion o f tlic action f o r l o s s of scrvicas arid did not vrmt employas

t o be givcn a r igh t of action t o rcplacc it. C.B.I. i n February 1966 n a b it c l ea r tha t that vicvr had not been unaninous t h m

The cvidencz given six o r scvcn yczl-s ago t c ; the La-;. Rcfom Comittce

Hmcvcr, our discussions with the

a n c l tha t the balance cf opinion rimy c c l l hzvc chmged since. It seem t o be

qui t s c lear tha t svants have not rea l i sed thc- hopc of the ninori ty of the Lay;:

Reforrn ConnittGe the t it s o u l d becoxe cornrncn fom1 for t a r n s of eaploynent t o include a provision tha t vagzs would contiilue during m injured enployee's

incapacity and bc repayablc only i f the v i c t i n recovered dkmages f roa a t h i rd

party. Such evidencs as we have suggests t ha t , on the cofitrary, the r r ac t i ce

of continuing t o pay wagds i s bxoning 1css cormon ,and tha t provisions t o .that

e f f cc t are ra re ly mong tiisse Gf Tdnich n r i t t e n par t iculars are furnished t o ..

cq loyces i n accordance

as express provisions are nade f o r paymnts 2uring abscncc through injury it scerns tha t thcy arc norrnally limited t o s ick pay not axcceding an ,mount vhich,

whcn added t o the nat ional insurance benefi t , w i l l approximate t o the basic

wage.

bargain for bct tc r terns na-i that thcre i s a l a r g z r body cf unemployed thLm

there was a f a r ycars ago. Ir, actual pract ice tl.iC-rc appears t o be a nz-rlceci

difference Sc-twcen the exyericnce cf manual ?ad non-nanual workers

Bedderburn o f Ixper ia l College i n a recent survey (46) found tha t 8276 of non-

manual vorksrs received some 3oi?zy from t h e i r wiployers during sickness and 36$ received t h e i r f u l l sages. and only.

x i t h the Contmcts of Etiploynent Act 1963. In s o far

'

Morecver, em2loyees a d t h a i r unions aro i n a less strong posit ion t o

l!Irs. DcrGthy

But only 5/52 of i,Imual norlcers received- anything

cot f u l l ~rages'~'~). Wcr dGes the yosit ion seen t o be nhclly

46. 47. Sca ibid. p.514. mG Tablo 1Ec at p.512. Thcse f igures relate t o a3sencc

Publishe6 i n J!le~vr Socictx for 12th Oct.1967 a t 3.512.

f c r siclsmss gsncrally - not cxclusively t o i n c q a c i t y due t o an accident vrhorc-, conceivably, the f igurcs nay be hi*er.

sa t i s fac tory fron t i e employer's point o f view. Unless express provisidn i !P ..U

cover tlie s i tuat ion wneii a vrorker i s absent, then, unless he i s on piece-vork,

the' normal posit icn n i l 1 be tha t he i - r i l l be en t i t l ed t o be paid h i s wages u n t i l

h i s employment is terniiiated. The l a s t s tep that the enployer w i l l normally

wish t o take i s def in i te ly t o dismiss an injured aorkman merely because he i s

injured. This frequently leads t o doubts and disputes on YJhether o r not the

-',

employment has i n fac t been terminated, and i r " so ;:lien, and accordingly t o what

vrages the employee i s lega l ly en t i t l ed .

20 Apart f ron t'nese consequences there i s a l s o the question o f j u s t i ce as

between the employer and employee on the one hand, and the tor t feasor on the

other.

of the tor t feasor l s l i a b i l i t y i s dependent upon (a) i-rhetlier the man he has

injured happeiis t o be a menial servant , ( b j whether the l a t t e r i s

terms of h i s employment, l ega l ly en t i t l ed t o h i s wages durin;. absence through

ir@ry and (c) what arrangements a re i n f a c t mad-e between employer and enployee,

If the injured man i s a menial servant and i s legal ly en t i t l ed t o nages'during

absence the injured m a n cannot recover l o s s of vrages fron the tor t feasor , but

the master can and no reduction v i i l l be nade fo r the servant ' s contributory

negligence(48).

from the tortfeasor. The employee nay or may not be able t o recover f ron the

tor t feasor according t o whether nages are i n f ac t paid, and, i f paid, on vhat

basis.

negligence w i l l reduce the arnount rscoverable by hin.

I n the eyes o f many it must appear a rb i t ra ry and unjust tha t the extent

under the

In other circwmstancss the employer can never recover d i rec t ly

If wages a r e recoverable by the enyloyee at a l l , h i s contributory

21. There i s therefore sane reason t o suppose tha t the present posit ion

is unsatisfactory and would be no l e s s sat isfactory i f the action f o r loss of

services were abolished, as we have no doubt that i t should be. But thc case

for fur ther reforming the lavr i s , t o soae extent, dependent on :;rhcther any

' change i n the lcgal posit ion nould be l i ke ly t o lead i n practice t o g rea te r

readiness on the par t of employers t o continue t o pay vrages t o t h e i r injured

viorkers.

do with the f a c t t ha t they knoa tha t tliareby they nay herely ba benefit ing thii

to r t feasor and i f , as nay also b? the case, they are indiffcrcnt as t o the

poss ib i l i ty of ever recovering what they pay, the case f o r any lcga l change i s

much nealrened.

tlie v i e w of the C.B.I. and other employers' associations, and of the T.U.C.

and craplopes l Unions.

22. far as possible a l l l i a b i l i t i e s a r i s ing out of one event should be disposed o f .

I f , as may v r c l l be the case, t he i r apparent reluctance has nothing t o

This i s a n o t h a question on nhich ne should par t icu lar ly irrelco:x

One other f ac to r which any rcforn should scck t o prescrve is t h a t s o

18.

in ,one action. This i s dasirabla not only b2causc n u l t i p l i c i t y cf actions is

inherently undesirable but because thc injured party n i l 1 f ind i t d i f f i c u l t t o

negotiatc a sa t t leacnt with the tor t feasor (or h i s insurers) unless t ha t

settlement disposes o f the ;Thole claiil. This i s a ponerful objection t o any

proposal vhich aould give an cnploycr an independent r igh t o f action against

the party t7ho had wrongfully injurcd h i s mpioyee.

objection t o the pmsent ac t icn f o r l o s s of serviccs - although not a very pctcnt one because of the nininal nuxber o f cases i n which such an action i s

possiblt..

It i s a l s o a fur ther

23 employer's present action f o r l o s s of sorviccs, there a r e , as -;re sce i t , three poss ib i l i t i cs .

Poss ib i l i ty I - Independent r igh t cf action by enrjloyer

Assurning t h a t there should be a new renedy on the abol i t ion o f the

24 The first poss ib i l i t y is t o confer on the e:nployer an en t i r c ly

independent r igh t of action against the tortfcasor.

r e t a in the present act ion f o r l o s s of sei-vices but t o f r ee i t f r o n the l i n i -

ta t ions ;-rhich the Znglish courts have itlposzd. This night be supported upon

the theory tha t uhcn a tor t feasor injures sor.icone hc ought t o foresee tha t the

employer of the injured party i s along those l i kc ly t o suf fc r l o s s and tha t

accordingly the enployer should be rcgarded as r;ri-tlin thc range c;f those t o ~ - ~ ~ x x a duty of care i s oned. It i s not thought tha t t h i s proposal i s one which

deserves serious consideration. It has, as we s m i t , a l l the disadvantages cf Vile other possible solut icns canvasscd bcloi-; and none o f t h e i r advantages. It

170Uld lead t o the poss ib i l i ty of rml t ip lc actions and t o a c e s s i v e rccovcry

fron the tor t feasor - since presuxably the contributory nG,.;;ligencc o f the

injurcd e q l o y e e would be i r re levant i n a n action by the enployer. If a r igh t

of rwovery i s t o be vested i n tha cnployer thcrc seem every advantage in

basing this on the subrogation principle considered under the next head;

I n e f f ec t t h i s mould be t o

Poss ib i l i ty I1 - Subro,:ation

25 9 A solution based cn the subrogation principle i s , i n e f f ec t , tha t

reconqended, by a najorit l ; , by the Lav: Rcforra Cormittee (49). Under t h c i r

proposals an enyloyer ( 5 0 ) -,-,rho i:lade payxents o r conferred other benefi ts on h i s

injured employw 7;Jould have bccn en t i t l ed t o recover fron the to i t feasor t o the extent tha t the tor t fcasor ' s l i a b i l i t y . t o the eq loyee had been reduced i n

consequence of t'ne act ion o f t h s cnploycr.

tor t feasor n m l d not have bccn i n c r a s c d 'out' thc anount fcr stnich hc i7as l i ab l e

Bccardingly the l i a b i l i t y o f the

. .

49 C-md. 201 7 , parns. 5-1 6 .

50. llEnployerll J-ias t o be defined vridely s o as t o a m i d d i f l i c u l t i c s regarding, f o r exaiiple, the police.

Ccrmittee fur ther recoimzndcd tha t the a i c i u n t rccovcrablc 3y the cnploycr frc-1

the tor t feasor shauld be reduced i n proportion t o s l y contributory negligcncc

on the par t oi thc enploycc. Trofessor F1eil:ing points out t ha t t h i s fu r the r

l imi ta t ion was not n x c s s a r y i n c r d e r 'CO avoid exccssivc rccovery against thn

t c r t f caso r (51). If the e q l o y c e ' s t c t a l darnage is ~10,000 of which iE1,OOO

represcnts icages tha t vrculd hslve been l o s t but f o r thc f a c t t ha t the cn-ploycr

continued t o pay viagas, and i f , because o f 5C$ contributcry negligence the

silployee i s en t i t lod t o recover cnly g5,0009 it nakes no differcncc t c the

t c r t f easo r vJhethcr thc enTloyor recovers i n f u l l ( C l ,000) and the enployec

recovsrs E4,OOO or i-rhethcr the ernployer mcovcrs P j O O and the enployce g4,500.

For the protection of the tor t fcasor the only ru l e need& i s tha t the m p l o g c r ' s

\

- -

claii:? s h a l l not exceed the t o t a l l i a b i l i t y t o the enployee(52). the ei~1ployer ought t o reccvcr i n f u l l ; tlic rule reconr;lended by the Committee

mans t h a t the ei;iployee i s benefited (he recovers 25,500 i n "a l l ]

cnployer dannifii.d bacause of the oiiployee' s negligcncc.

Cormittee thought tlia-t. therc would be objection by the t rade unions i f the

employer recovered i n f u l l while tha eqdoyec did not , and on purely p r a a a t i c

g-owids t h i s nay j u s t i f y t h e i r rxomcnda t i cn .

conscious of the f a c t t ha t the c7positc rule would pcduce what !2ight seen t o

3e an anor3alous d i s t inc t ion bctwecn the tvro major typcs o f personal in jury

cases - road accicents and factory accidents.

claim i s against a t h i r d party; i n the l a t t e r nomal ly against h i s eixploycr.

In the l a t t e r , the erqloyee's clai-n i n respcct of l o s s o f wages i s re6uced by

t l c iLmunt cf wages ahich thi. erli2loycr-C-efcndant has continued t o pay. If i n

such EL case the enployec's total c l a in i;IC;ulG, again, have bcen for 210,000,

including g1,OOO for l o s s of wagss had they mt been paid, thc e q J o y e e ' s c l a in

is . reduced t o 23,000 i f .i.ragss ars paid, and i f he i s 5@ t o b l a m he rmovers

$4,500 which, with the iC1,OOO aages alrca6y r a id , gives h in e5,500 i n al l .

In pr inciple

aftd tlic

It nay be tha t the

Moreover they nay hzve becn

I n thc f o m e r the enployec's

Akccrdingly the rule suggested by tnc Cornrnittcc proZuces the s a m r c s u l t vdicthzr

the clain i s against a t h i r d party c r the eq loyc r .

ilradicatc thc azcimly tha t i n both cases if tlic erqloyec has been cont r ibu tcr i ly

It does not, hovmer,

negligent an employer who continues t o pay I - J ~ ~ Z S ends up worse o f f than if hc h s d

not paid.

26. ation.

The cfr^nct o f contributory ncgligmce can be l e f t f c r l a t e r consider-

The qucs t im which first iieccis decisioii i s whether thc subro.gation - p r i n c i p h i s tha best so lu t i t n . The casa asainst it i s strongly arguad by the

51. Op.cit., p.1525.

2U.

2. It is arguable. t h a t , whcrc it does, the c:l::doycr shculd ba c n t i t l e d t c rccovcr f rom tile mploycc. T1x I s r a d i Lavi, consiclcrad bc lo-~~, so. provid-cs.

i s scn t ing minority on the Lav! Iictfom Comitt;;.e (53) . ldost of t n c i r zrgmcnts, howcver, are agziiist prcviding any renady ratner than against t h i s pa r t i cu la r

sclution.

cf actiGn i n the enl3loyer are t ha t it X G U l d mccurage x u l t i p l i c i t y o f act ions

and make it rnore d i f f i c u l t t o set t12 out o f court.

t o s o m c o n s i b m b l a extent by the rnajority reco;nr;cndations cf the Cormit tce

tna t ssparate act ion should bc disccuraged by ccs t s

pocedura l

se t t12 i s not m t , ancl i s , i n cur v iz? , a s w i c u s one.

insurs rs ) vrnat t o hc. abls t o s z t t l o thz whch o f tlic claiiz at cne t ine .

v i l l be rs luctLmt t o ssttl;. with tho enplcyz-e unloss, at the sane t i n e , they mx

s c t t l c niti? thc wiplcya.

if nci thcr c q l c y e r nor e n p l o y ~ s wcro e b l c -to c f f cc t a sc t t lcnent vi thout tlic

concurrmcs o f the othcr?

associations rcprcscntiiig thc txo sidcs of industry.

t ha t thcrc aculd bc l i t t l c d i f f i c u l t y mid tha t mplcysrs muld be wil l ing t o

subor&hate t h e i r i h t e r z s t s t.- thcsa o f t h e i r injured workers.

ecployers I;.O~CG>C; thc nccd t o ~IUSUC. t h c i r , szp-rate claii:: agaiiist ti?~ tortfcascr '?

Jculc? they not p x f e r t o leav? mcrythiizg i n thz hculds of the ;.nployee? solution i-foulS. afford the gres-tcr cncouragcnznt t o ccntinuc t o pay nags?

27 impleacntec? i n &glan2 and m r c r o j c c t d . by t h e Law R o f o m Comit tee f o r

S ~ o t l a n 6 ' ~ ~ ) , th.ey v c r z the ins2 i ra t i .m of I s r a e l i l eg i s l a t ion - the L ~ J I cf

Torts (Repair of Bo6ily Hz::;) Act 1964'~~)~ This Act goes f u r t h m than the

Lai;J Xoforr.1 Co: .xi t tm's proBosals i n t h a t i t zxtcnds tc: a n y o ~ c who through h i s

services :nitipWtes, the injured ?erson' s h a m mcl i s not l i n i t e d t o bonefi ts

conferred by an cn$oyer. It is , acccrdingly, o€ re lcvmce not only i n the

prssent context but a l s o i n r c l a t ion t o the prcb lm of family sx-pcnditurs con-

sidered i n paras.46. zt.seq.

roascnable a id t o those suffcr ing from "bodily 1iar.m" (which includes i l l n e s s , b d i l y or ncntal defact '31' clcath) an2 i s thcrcforc i n l i n e w i t h the so-callcd

The Tain argunents against any solut icn which noulcl ves t a r i g h t

Thc fcrrier o b j x t i o n i s a c t

sanctions a.n& by othcr

The cbjzction -that it would r,iake it d i f f i c u l t t:, Defendants (and t ~ i c i r

They

Xiglit it not m h fzr 2tisharriony i n labour r e l a t ions

On t h i s qucstion ac s h a l l again vrclcone the v i c m of

In ncs t cases we inaginc!

But would

Xhicl.1

Althcugh the rccomien6.ations of thc Lax Rcforx Connittee have not S c a

It afford-s a rcnedy t o all pcrsons who o f f e r

"Good Smari tan" Acts i n thc U.S,h, (57)

. . . . .. . . , . . . 53. C % I ~ . . ~ O I ~ , pp.12-14. . .

54. 55. CLlrld. 1997.

. . c~~%i.-2017, para.15. But scc the ?,linority i?cport, para.6 at p.13.

56, '

For a dcscr ipt icn i;f i t s prc-Jisdcns, scc X. Shalgi: fi Bencfector's Rignt of Acticn a@-inst a T o r t f m s o r : B Mcn i?ppc;ach i n I s r a e l , (1966) 29 M.L.R. 42. Tie must a c ~ ~ ~ c ~ ; ~ l ~ ~ g ~ our indcbtcdncss t o t h i s a r t i c l c cn which the present acccunt i s bascd.

On these, so8 Flcning, o7.cit . p.1512 and sr~urccs thzrc c i ted. 57.

It allons recovery ini rcspcct of ltexpaXXturc incurred o r scrvic @ renddrcd i n crLer t o rcpair bcdily ham, yrzszrvc the victim 'fron aggravation of the ham o r f r o 2 fur thar ham o r rc l icve h i s suffzr ing,

assistance givc-n t o thc v i c t in to:-lards h i s r.;aintcnance D r thc naintznancc of h i

fani ly as he needs as 3 r e su l t of the h a m and, \-hcrc thc v i c t in has dicd,

assistancc as afcrcsaid given t o a persm ciititlecl t o coapnsat ion fror.1 thc

tortfcascr i n rcspcct of thi. v i c t in ' s dcath", Th2 only cxccpticn i s vrhcrc a12

insurance ccnpany r e p a i r s thc ha-m. under an insurancc policy with thc v ic t in .

includ.cs such

The person who repairs the liar3 i s givcn a d i rzc t action against t!iS

hcn th3 l a t t e r ' s tcr t ious l i a b i l i t y t o thc v,:tin i s establishcd,

h ex-pnditv-ro as is rcasonablz can 52 recovcrdd. It i s cxprassly a t salary o r mgcs paid bjr an c:qloyer arc t o be rcgardocl as

provided tha t they do not cxcecd thd salaiy er nagcs nhich the

ould have recsiveC i f he hcd bscn a t 7,io-rk yLgain, it ixgrcss1;r

t h i s iiicluLcs thc rcasona'uls upke~,.il: c.f a solGicr during thi: iicri;:

Hoi:i\vcr, t h xzirnu.1 l i a b i l i t y o f the 4x-c-t- c i s unfit f o r scmicc..

not t o Sxcccd thc m c u n t vhich ho -;iould hcrvc had tc p y th, vic-ii.1

?Xior< th; i n j u r d ;?arty i12s b c m c a i t r i - had net Seen r q a i r e 6 .

egligcnt the bencfactcz xay rcccvcr f r o n thi, v i c t i c i n prcgc;rtion tx

tter's b l ~ . ~ ~ r n o r t h i n ~ s s ( ~ ~ ' . If thc victi!i has ropzi2 tilc bzncfnct4-Y

the v ic t in , nay then rcccvcr frm thG tcz::za-scr.

. . thdrn j s an irtdr-s'iiq; ::rivislm C;;csigncS. La .yilli:-,isz

the d i f f i cu l t i c s cnusc2 by allc-;,-iri; s ~ ~ ~ s ~ - ' L ~ actiL,ns by thc: vic-tirl ail:- bc:?cI'nct$

The court which trii.s tiw b z % f n c t c r ' s cla;:? :xq, cn h i s appiiceticn, adrii; 3s

videnci. findings i n the action by t h ~ v i c t in azzinst tl?c tc r t fcasor rz;;ardin;

_ . .

doss not apply since i t i s i;h~uglii; t h s t Scn i r a l ly the nain issuc i s bctvrcen th;!

v ic t in and thc. wrongdoer mad that th2 c m r t iihich t r i c s t h i s riust bct xntrmmlld

by any finGin2 i n the subsiZiary action by the bcncfactor.

thz k r o actions, i f fou-sht a t a l l , T r i l l bc h x d togctner.

28.

i s t o be adopted, the I s r a e l i h t i s a p x c d e n t which descrvss closi. study.

58.

N o r n a l l y , no doubt ,

It s m r x t o us then-t, if a rc;?.ecly based on thc subrogation principle

As Shalgi ' (op'cit . 2.46) pifits o u t , the e r q l o y x i s not r c s t r i c t d t o the rccovcry ~f !mgc:s at thc rat2 prcczciins the injury; t h i s is o f inportancc i n Israel c-fi,rc most cc l lzc t ivs agrccxcnts. 2rovide for periodical incroascs.

Tf thc: victir i alone i s ncgl igmt thc bcncfactm nay x c o v c r from hin.

Tncrc i s also an in tc rcs t ing and usc€ul 1:rovision v:hercby tha bcnzfactor i s givcn a d i rcc t r igh t a&nsl the to r t fcasor ' s insurcr , i f any,

59. 60.

22.

Q (61) it !$%

At thc time of n r i t i n g thc a r t i c l e on which th? abov? account i s based

was t o o early t o jud@ how it i s ncrlting,

sh'ould hzvo bem gaincd (62) and i n hcpc tha t those i n I s r a e l t o Whoa t h i s P a p r

i s sent m i l l be abls t o givi us ai asscssncnt G f tha r c su l t s s o fa r .

I s r a e l i Law's a t t rac t ions , as alrca6y ncntioned, i s tha t it subsums the c h i n

of an employer within a wider principlc which would p a r t i a l l y solve the problm

of clairis by ner-ibers of thc v i c t i n ' s faxi ly ,

By noiir, houevcr, s o r e expericncc

One OP the

29. tne victim's c l a in t o the e q l o y c r for snfcrccnent by thc l a t t c r there a re , cf course, othcr ways of achieving t h i s apar t fron those based on subragation.

One could, f o r oxanplc, provide f o r an cxpress a s s i w c n t of the appropriate

proportion of the victim's clair.1 t o t h o s q l o y e r .

cnploymcnt contracts as imTosin,- an obligation on the cmployce t o assign h i s

t o r t clai-2 t o the enploycr i n rcspsct of any viagcs paid during d i sab i l i t y

This, honever, scems t o have no advantage over a solution based on subrogation.

Apart a l tcgcther f ron doctr inal ob.joctions t o the assigment o f rights of

action f o r t o r t s , "the common law techniquo of subrozation , being autonatic

in operation, seems preferable since it avoids the noccssity of resor t ing t o

legal process i n order t o comycl a reca lc i t ran t emplcycc t o assign"

If i t were decided tha t thc r igh t coursc would bc t o t r m s f c r par t of

Gcrnan 1ai-1 i n f a c t in ta ryrs t s

(63) .

(64)

BossiSil i ty I11 - Zccovcry fror.1 tortfzs-scr by the cri:)loyoe

30. The th i rd possible solution - cnc i-rhich has Sccn sugscsted t o us by

the Bar iissocistion f o r Coimxczp Financc and I n h s t r y - i s t o allo-:: the cnp lqbc

t o recovsr frcn the ta r t fcasor srithGut giving crcZit for any sw-s p i ? t by thc

employer, leaving subsequent ad.justncnt t o takc place bctvrcen the mploycr and

cnployee. This solution, i f it could bc elzbcretcd s o as t o nork s a t i s f ac to r i ly

ip pract ice , has considerable advantages ovcr those previously canvassed - advantages fron tlic vimpoints of employer, employee, and tor t fcasor alike.

e rq loyer noull! not be saddled viith the burden of bringing a separate ac'tion Tne

against the tc r t fcasor and the enployce ,znd thc tor t fcasor vrculcl bc f r ee t o

s c t t l e thE whole claim.

eradicating nost cf thc prcsent uncertainty abcut, and anonalous d-istincticns

behvecn, thoss bcnGfits rcceivec? f r o m an amploycr which thc cnploycc must CeGuct

fron thc damsgcs recoverable f r o m the t s r t f caso r and those which he n x d not

It vrculd a l s o have tho p e a t advantage of automatically

(65)

61. Sec n.56, sums.

62. It cme in to forcc on 2nZ- i ipr i l , 1964. 63. Scc on t h i s Flming, op.cit. py.1512, 1513, 1520-1523.

64. Flening: op.cit. p.1513. 65. See pars.10, suprs.

expsnscs vhethcr o r not thcsc had been paid by the crnploycr and ~7hcthc.r c r not

the enclover had Daid thcn vcluntar i ly or becausc he 'ifm bound t o dc so. It

mould avoid +hi. nced i n the cqlloyce's action t c ensure tha t f u l l account was / taken of'what he had rcccivcd fron the eni>loycr,

tirerc placecl under a k g a l c,bligation t o restore t o the enp1cyc.r whatevcr he

Furthernor;, i f the enploycz

recovered fron the tortfeasGr i n rcspect of l i z b i l i t i s s i n f ac t borne by the

employer, doublc racompensz t o tlic eiqloyee vrould always be avciCeC1 - as it scczs

not t o be a t grescnt where tlic payments are nacle gratuitously by the erqloyer.

31 However, as w i l l 'uc poiiitcd cut l a t e r (66 ) , i f the enyloyec mere placcc". I

i p

under EL legal cbligation t o acccunt t o the cnployer it ViGUld undoubtecly add t o

the conplicstions.

necessary ar desirablc t o impose any such oSligaticn.

be le€t t o be workad out between enploysr and cilployec.

prepared t o re ly on en$oyecs' sense cjf noral obligation they could insor t e x p c s s

It i s for consideration, thcrafore, whether it aoulcl be

The na t t e r could instead

If en-iloycrs v~cm fiat

provisions i n t h e i r terns cf eriployment. It i s t rue tha t if employees wcrc mC:.

no lega l obligation t o acccunt they night sornctincs cnjoy a doublc recovery. It can bc argued however tha t this i s lcss objcctionablc than tha t the tor t feaoor .

should benefit because cf thc generosity of thc enyloyer sr because the cnp1oyc.c

has f o r o g m c a hi@cr r e s l a r trage i n considcretion o f thc cclploycr undortakind

t o 7rovide him wi th mgcs c r s i ck pay G r t c ;ay fcr h i s ncdical attention.

ire have as 2 r c su l t of th? Fatal ,',ccidsnts Act 1959 such benefits a r c

nct t o be dduc t sd i n a dcpcnc?,mtts c1air.z undm the Fatal Accidents ,'.ct o r i n a

claiii unc?cr the Carricgc by Air h t . leg is la t ivz policy(68) tha t ilcycndats shal l ' 3 3 cn t i t l cd t o such bcncfi ts i n

i AS

IT . that c ? ? be r c p r d e d 3s shoving CL

add-ition t o any corn:xnssticn frcm t hc tcrtfeasor, it secills strange that the s m c

24..

t o honour t h i s ncral c1;ligaticn.

with the beneficiar ics tliz mount repaid would presumbly not be

deductible as a debt t o r d u c e the amount of the cs ta te f o r death

duty yur-poses.

%c.n i f tncy did so by agrccrnellt

33. ;is regards

?,:E susixct , on .,:!hcther he imaits t o r z t a i n the mployee.

forthconing depends !minly, x e havo no b u b t , on whethcr it i s payable under th,c

conc?itions o f servicc; it nay or nay not be th;3 case tha t it xould norc comionly

bc providecl f o r if thcrc was a charice of u l t ina te ly rccovering it. Occasionall>-

one c?r other 122y be y i d out of a huxane dcsirc t o help the v;or!man ,and- h i s

f m i l y , and doubtlcss t h i s i s ccmonly the riotivc yhcn incclical expenses a re

dcfrayecl by the employcr.

i n any par t icu lar case depevld on t‘nc 1il;eliliood of k i n g r e p i d .

be said i s tha t p a p c n t s arc more 1ikc:ly t o be mad;;. ciut of a desire t o help t l x

workillan than out of a dcsire t o help the tor t feasor .

utia, men nithout aleQ;al ri&t to recoupnent, r;.y 1~ ?.s likdy as tk xcos6. t o encourage

It is questionable xhethcr e i thc r cf these ob jections has nuch vzli?-i ty.

f i rs t , whether an enplc,ycr continues t o pay nages deljends r?ain:g,

Xhether sick-pay i s

Vc\ry rarely, ‘23 tlninl.;, v j i l l the c-nployer’s decision

A11 t ha t cm-

That being s o , M s tl*C sol-

such yy:?ents t o he nade.

tha t many cnplsycrs arc l i k s l y t o bc u p x t by the f a c t tha t an exyected

voluntary r epapen t does not na t c r i a l i s c because the cnplcyce dies.

i t i s cnly i n the r a r e s t of casss t ha t l i a b i l i t y t o c s t a t e duty v ; i l l be a serious consideration i2rscluGing a voluntary rqayxent i f thcse interested i n the

es ta te vrish t o 381cc it. >ay cr.iployer who Ts concerncd t o secure a lcgal r igh t

t o repzyncnt can Trovicic f o r tha t i n h i s tcnas of ca~ ; lopen t , thereby avoi6iiig

my such d i f f i cu l t i e s .

34 it i s thoufyht essential c r clcsirsblc

t c provicle the enplciyer v i t h a l e e 1 r igh t of rccovery against h i s c;aployee we

see no ovewhelning d- i f f icul t izs i n s o prcviding so long as the r igh t of reccup-

xent is’ l i n i t e d t o sms paid pr ior t o the judgelit i n the enployee’s action

against the tor t feasor 2nd therefore inclucled i n the spLcial damges rccovcrec-

by hin.

impractica51c.

su:i representing cornpiisation f c r loss’ o f futura earnings, ho;3ing tha t his

futurc wages n i l 1 ult imately rccouy, l i b .

eqdc?ycr f o r nothing until he has rcndcrec? services cquivalcnt i n v d u c t o the

capi ta l su!. ]@art f ron t h i s , equitablc adjustnent cf the incone t,ax positioll

nould bc: i nposs ib ly clifficult . But so long as th2 erq)loycr’s r i s h t o f r e c o u p

As ropx6.s thz sccond objection we cannot ina&na

~LbrcGvcL’,

If, desyi ts the cbove arLmmnts

Tc extend the r igh t of rccoupcnt t o futurs p a p c n t s aould Be obvicusly

€To ei>?:;loyee i s gGifig t o hanc? over t o h i s enplcycr a capi ta l

Bcr is hc p i n g t o work fcir the

nent i s l i n i t c d tc: SUCIS already paic! vre can scc no par t icu lar d i f f icu l ty .

35. ~ o u l d have t o be rcached on what vms t o ha2pn i f the daiiages rccovered viere

I f t h e enpl0yc.r nere t o bc given a lega l r i gh t of recovery a decision

. ..

25.

rcduccd bccausc o f the cnyloyec's contributcry negligence. This n a t t c r ha 9 already been advertcd t o above(69), and it nas pointed out tha t t h i s i s solely c.

qucstion as befmcen em;>loycr and ezi2lcy.x an2 c!oes nct a f f x t the l i a b i l i t y of

the tcr t feasor .

has been contrilsutorily negligent.

l i a b i l i t y t o rcco-ip the enploycr should s i n i l s r l y be re6uceci.

tha t i n a s i tua t ioz such as s-ie ars a t p q s c n t Ziscussing thc rule vould have tc:

bc tha t the onpioyec, on recovering frcn the t o r t f m s o r , should res tore t o thd

cnploycr the 1;iliole of the suns acvznced byh in -a t any r a t e s o long as thcy did

not exceed tho t o t 2 1 mount rucovcrccl. It cannot be r igh t , as RC sec i t , tha t

the amount t o be r x t a r e d by the ci:q:loycr should bc rzduccd bccause the

employee i s lii;,?sGlf a t fau l t .

readi ly understanclablc thcugh thcy nay 32, rnust bz neighed cgainst ths a r p e f l t

tha t cnploycrs cannot be ex>ectcd t o go on payin3 rrages if they lmon tha t the

mount t he t they v i l l get back i s dcpcni!ent on the cxtent o f the enployee's

cor,tributory ncgligencc.

f r o n tha t consiL:ercd l a t e r ( 7 0 ) SThcrc xmbers of thc f m i l y seek t o rocovcr

soncthing d d i t i o n a l t o thc to r t feasor ' s l i a b i l i t y t o the imicdiatc victim.

Thcrc i t sax i s quite r igh t tha t the tor t fcasor ' s additional l i a b i l i t y should 5c

rcd-uccd proportionately t o thz v i c t k i ' s contributory ncgligcncc. In the present

context, hovcver, thc question i s sinply hcn the m o u n t f o r nhich thc tc r t feasor

i s liabl,: t o the v i c t i n should he dividcd 3etT,JzC-n ti?e v i c t i n and the ezploycr

nho has advanccd sagzs t o him.

The l i a b i l i t y of thc l a t t e r n i l 1 5c reduccd i f tlie employee

The q w s t i m i s v b t h c r tha enployoc's

It seems t o us

Pcssiblc trade union objections t o such a n l c ,

ils 1;:3 see i t , tlic prdscnt s i tua t ion i s t o t a l l y diffcrei

36. Vhcrs, hoimvi'r, tlie t o t z l mount rxovered by the employee i s less thar

the t o t a l wages a l x a d y paid by the mp1oyi.r it seems c lear t ha t , i n thc absence

of exprcss apecnent t c the contrary, the cn-&oycc should not be required t o

res tore t c thz enploycr rncre thLm he, the erqloyee, has rccovcred from t h c ' t o r t -

feascr. This, hcmvcr, i s ncjt a very co-mon s i tua t ion sincc normally past v~;rag>s

n i l l const i tute only a snall f ract ion o f the t o t a l damages clain.

er-iployec's proportionate responsibi l i ty f o r the accident i s very high or h i s

claim f o r past vm~cs const i tutcs an unusually l u g 2 f rac t ion of h i s t o t a l l o s s ,

tha t o t a l dama@-zs V7hiCh hc m y be cxpsctcd t o rzcover shoulZ be suff ic ient t o

cna5lc him t o rccoup the em$oycr. Vkat, hoi'i;3.V2r9 n i l l ciore comonly occur i s

t h a t h i s rccovcry i n rcspc-ct o f past air2 futura carnings w i l l , bmausc of h i s .

contributcry nogligence

Yhen t h i s occurs should! tlie m o u n t recoverable fron the enployoe by the enp1oy.n

be r d u c e d likewisc?

ir-ipracticable k c , long as jucigcs dc: not ali-Jays cxprcssly divicle the t o t a l s u r

Unless the

be less th,m .tli;, wages already paid by thc cn21oyc-r.

In our cyiiiion it shculd no'c, i f only because t h i s would 'x

amrc?,?d by m y o f d,unages uncicr varicus heads zf dxiag:i.s. 1 bven i f judgcs

69. See para.25.

70, Inf ra. parn. 85,

26.

q) hanged tbir pac t i ix i i i t h i s ragarc; it vrould st i l l naks f o r d i f f i cu l ty vrhcr,

c h i n s were settlac? Gut of s cu r t ; then both par t ics want t o bc able t o s e t t l e

€Qr a lumy sax :-rithout coxp l i ca td assessncnts u n d a various heads.

37 The Law Rcfore Cormittee prcferrcd thc soconcl solution t o t h i s , t l x t h i rd , on the fol1cv:ing grounc?s : (71 1

"Thc cnployec 7;iculd hmi. l i t t l e inccrztivz t o c la in daxagcs f r o g nliich iie wou1d- dcrivs no advantage, i2i?re par t icular ly"if , as i n the C ~ S O cf ncdical cxpcnscs i n c m r a l 011 h i s 'behalf 5y h i s c-nyloyer, h6 nculd hzv? t o go t o sone trcuble t c asci.rtain t h e 2ar t iculars . employer' s r igh t of rccovcry rrculcl 13e clepmctixt upzn thc awwd of dmagcs t o the cnployce, tlie cn;?loycr nculd hzvi31 i10 rmc6-y i f the em$oyee did nct choose t c bring procacdings aid i t night 32 d i f f i c u l t f c r the cmplcyer t c rcccvcr i f the crisloyee scttlecl h i s c l a in out of ccurt. Finally, ve Iiavc no rcascn t o bi.lic:ve tha t eiqloycrs vrcxld vrelcone a rmedy which m u l d i n the l as t rc.sc1r.t depend on t l icir br insinz y o c c d i n g s against an c q l o y e e vho ha6 been tnc victim c;f an accidcnt."

L l l these crgwients obviously hzvs s m e forcc but z l l are based cn tlic assuqkicn

tha t t h s cmployee i s t o be placad urikr a l z p l obligction t o rciciburse th2

Korcover, as the

crirloyer. If he is not, but i f , as we havz suggs tod r?bovc, the question of

rccoupacnt i s l e f t t o bc m r k d out Sctvredn the cnTloyGr and cnploycc, the

objections largely c!isziqxar.

38. convinced tha t the objectioiis of thc Lav Iicforn Comit tze are vcry weighty.

the mployc-eqs only dmages were l o s s of past mges no doubt he vrould not

botlicr t o SLIC if thc cmploycr had continued t o ;lay hin. But ncmal ly t h i s wcul:?

n o t be the only or the xajor par t of h i s l o s s .

cases the cngloyer has 8 rcmocly i n h i s w n hands.

s.igm o f pwsuing h i s action a@nst the tor t feasor , the e q l o y e r ca,n force h i s

hmd 3y coasing t o pay wagcs sic? rcturning h i s carch. S c t t l m m t s out of court

nculc? aciLiitteGly br3 s l igh t ly 1?1orc canplicntcd since the cnploycc, t o 5c sure of

h i s ult imate posit icn, wiiuld necd t o ctcnsult the cnplcycr before accepting tlio

set t lcnent and t o agecc nit l i the ea$oycr hew r'iuch should be ropnic? him. But

i t ~ o u l d s t i l l avoid soiw of the d i f f icu- l t i s s o f cff'ccting a set t lcnent which

would inevitably ?.rise cm the second sGlution t o be ad0pti.d vheii, as .xe havc

men, the tor t fcascr C G L I ~ ~ iuver be surG o f achieving a f u l l a d f i n a l se+,tlcnar;t

by aaking an offzr t o the c~p loycc alone. Finally, a h i l e ne a g m e tha t cmp1oyc;zs

i70ul6 not n i sh t o hmc t o Sring actions a p i n s t t h c i r enployees, actual liti- gation wculd- Sc vcry nuch a last r c so r t zliich voulil' IiGrd-ly svor bc used.'

amicable sct t lenent Sctmcen exploycr an?- crip1oy;'e' shculc? norzally be eas ie r t o

reach than 2 scttlcment b2t:;iscn the onployer a i d t i c tcr t feasor .

39.

3 i . n i f the ccPloyce m r e >laced- under a l ega l obligation we arc not

If

h.6 i n the vast na jor i ty of

If tlie oq~loyoe shons no

. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .

i'di

The Law R c f o m Csmi t tee for ScatlanC auggcsted tha t i f an cnpJcycr

27

were given a r i @ t cf recovery t h i s coulC: lead t c d i f f i c u l t i c s regarding i n c o x

tax(72). papen t s nade p i c r t o tho t r i a l cr̂ tlic. cmr,loycc's action ne do not think tha t

any serious trouble would a r i s c , The u l t ina to r c s u l t , hcvevx, night d i f f c r

accorcling t o whether the enployer i-;crs given a r igh t against thc tor t feasor

(i .e. solut icn 11), o r left t o recover frcirl t he emyloyee (solution 111).

Brit ish Transport Coxmission v. Gourleg ( 7 3 ) the mount i-zcovcrablc by the

eiqloyee f rcn the tor t fcasor i s tlic cqiaivalent cf the l o s t .iTaGCs a f t a tax.

So long as the r igh t cf rzcovcry vcre l i n i t c d , as suggested above,

Sincc

T h t . - U -.

tliz e;q)lcycr has continued t o pzy nagos hi. w i l l 9 pri!su;?a5ly, have doductcd tax

under €'LYE an6 accountcd t o thc Rcvznue thcrsfor.

action against tlie tc r t fcasor it n ~ u l d ,prc.smably, bc f o r the t o t a l mount vhich

he 5ad ppaii! t o thc cr-i;)oycc and t o t h o Revenue.

employer and the 0~2loyse vrould be f u l l y conpnsatcd, 3ut the tc r t fcasor vroull

have 2aid the mcunt cf t'nc tLa which he noulr2 hzvc cscapcd paying i f no wages

had bcen aZZvcanced - i n the l a t t c r ovent the loser nculcl bc the Revenue which

nould not receive t a x on the wages.

alloved t o recover from the tor t fcasor , h i s rwcvcry, unlcss tho rulc i n Gourley

is a l te red , would- prcsumbly bc. th2 equivalent of ti?e mages less tax, and t h i s

i s a l l t ha t he c m f a i r l y be asltad t o rostorc t o the onployer.

the tOrtfeaSOr ncuhii be i n thc smm posit ion as-if wages had no t bcen'paid, 'iiut

the x:?ployer vrould be undcrccnpcnsatcd 5y thc mount o f thc c?iffcrcnt r e su l t nay be ,anoxdous 13ut 173 cannot regard it as of grcat i q o r t m c c .

40 . TIC have alrmcly s ta tcd tha t i n our view it nsuld 3s quite inpractica?:.lc.

t o rcquirc the C~i~lOycc: t c refun6 t o tl?c orqloycr payments exccedinc the m o u n t

of wagcs paid p r io r t o the juc!,qiant i n the arqiloycr's action.

a r i scs whethcr, if thc th i rd srjlution wers adoptcd, i t should be these p r i o r

;>ayi;lcnts alone which should be disrsgardc-d i n assassing the danagas rcccverabli.

by the omploycc frcrn thc tc r t fcascr or vrhcther a l l such benefits past or future

should be disregarded. As alrcaiy p o i n t d out, i n assessing dmagcs i n c la ins

under the Fatal ikcidcnts Act or Carriage by Air Act no account i s t o be takcr,

of "ay insuraiice noncy, bencfit , pcnsion o r p a t u i t y which has bcen o r w i l l or

;.'ay bc 29id as a rosult o f thi! deat'n" (75). iido>tion cf the same rule would itcad

If he nerc givcri a d i r ec t

-On t ha t basis, both the

I f , on the other hand, thc erqloyee v m e

Lcccrdingly

The

The question

74.

75.

Unlsss he cGu1C: recover fro21 the Rzvcnue - a;ld 57e do not see how he coul?.

Fatal Lcciclents Lct 1959, s.2(1). insurance had already boen xccluGed by th2 Fatal k x i d c n t s (Damages) Lct 1908.

% m y s payable under a contrect of

- _. .

. . 28.

.._. ~ .

G,$ t o

cf

a provision that Scncfits "which have bcen or - ; r i l l o r nay be pait! as a m s u l t

the should be disragzrded (76) . , i;hile t h i s would iiiclude insurance

moneys, pensions, and papicnts for xcdical e t tent ion, it vrculd prcswaably not

include waps ( f o r wages arc paid not as a resu l t o f tho injury but dcsgite the

injury). Fatal Accidents ixt shoi-;s a gcncral l cg is le t ive 2olicy t o oxclude benofits, sincc:

a Ciffcrnnt policy as regards ITationzll Iiisurmcc has becn adopted. i n thc Law

Zeform (Personnl In jur ies ) Lct 1948.

f o r pcrsonal injur ics account has t o h? tdcm of "onc: half of thc value o f Xiiy

r i ch t s ahicli have a c c r u d or probably w i l l accrue . , . . tharefron i n rcspi.ct cf

in&ust r ia l injury benzfi t , industr ia l disablenent lxnofi t o r sickncss Scncfit

for t l io five years bcciiininS vrith thct tir:is rhcn the cause of action accrued".

This provision reprcscnts a coxqronise b@t-i:een thz vicu-6 of the Monckton

Cormi t t co (77 ' , vrhich had fmcurcd- taking thc nholc of these benefits in to

account i n rcGuction of tlic d-xnagos recovcrablc, mZ t haw vrho thought they

should be to t a l ly disrcp.rdcd.

nliich it would bc apyropriate t c ac1oI;t a prasqatic corqironisc rkithcr than t o

attempt a r ig id adherclice t o a s t r i c t p i n c i p l c e i thor that thcre shoulC ncvsr

be cvcr-conpensation o r tint thc tor t fcasur should never bcncfit f r o a the n i t i -

gztion o f dLmases by a third pzrty.

Hovrcvor, i t probably goes t o o f a r t o argw that the provision i n tho

Undor s.2(1) cf that Act i n a1 action

It secins t o us that t h i s probably is a ficl?: iii

41 i-rc think, apply squally t o paynonts by otlicr Senkfactcrs r-rhich ni t igato loss t o the party primarily injured-. As x - ; ~ have seen (7r) ., such , . . iX.pcnts , do . . . not , sce!g9

under the >rcscnt law9 t o rcilucc the h n a g c s rccovora5lo against the tor t fcascr .

If the cmploycr x w z Given a LirGct action against the tor t faasor (i .e. if

solution 11 nerc zdo7tait) it wouX prcsumhly bo d x i r a b l e t o provide othcr

benefactors with a di rcc t zction as COCS thc I s r az l i locis la t ion referred to

a3cve (79). bmofactcrs shculc? opcrate t o rcduce the C?aizgzs rccoverable by the iLmicdiate

v i c t in from the tortfeasor.

enpioyers' payncnts ylere ad-cptd, as -:rc ay2 inclined tc. favour., the r c su l t would

be t o equate the positiGn of eixFlcycss v i t h othor bcncfactors unc?,er the yrcsciit

lm, be given a def ini te 1egd r ight t c rcccjver from thc v i c t in oncc he ha2 recoverd

Vhatcvor sclution i s ado;?tcci as reprc?s ;qmants by ciqloycrs slioulc?

In that ?vent it m G u l d br3. necessary t o ?rcvic!c the t payncnts 5y such

If, homvcr, the th i rd soluticn t o the prolilcm of

In that event thc question would a r i se vhcthzr other benefactors should - . . . . . _ . .

. . . . . _. , . . .

76

77. 78, Para. I 0 , suprn.

79. Para. 27, suixzi.

This i s the position i n th? Rcpublic bf IrclanC $y vir tue of s .2 of thc Civi l Liabi l i ty (fmenCxant) I,ct 1964 (no. 17 of 1964).

R q o r t of tlic Cornittee cn iLltcrnative 3emc6-ics9 Cnd.6860, of 1946.

29

from the t o r t f o a s o r . Our provisional view i s tha t tho case f o r so doing i s 0 far

y;Jcaker t h m i n the case of en2loyers.

or friends an?;, as was saic!. long a ~ m i n a c?iffcrcnt but aialocous context:

The bcncfactors n i l 1 normally 5e relnticna

"perhaps i t i s bc t t c r f o r the 2ublic tha t these voluntary acts of benevolence fron ono mm t o anothcr which are cha r i t i e s and moral dut ies , but not legal c'utics, shoulC G-e-peni! altogi.thcr f o r t h e i r reward on the inora l duty of grati tude" (80)

In saying tha t WL? are thinlij-n? only cf the s i t u s t i cn i7hcrc the bmcfactor 's

expenditure hss 5cm recovi3-rc<L from the. nrongdoer by the victim, who i s thare5y

placed i n a position t o show h i s grat i tude by mking restoration.

may v:cll be c?iffcrcnt .\-hero the th i rd party hes suffcrcZ loss which is nc t

rccovcrablc from the nrong2oer by thc vict in . To tha t we advert l a t e r

Nor are we thinking o f p p e n t s rcceivad from the State unilcr National

Thc s i tua t i cn

(81). . . .

' Insurance, We do not su:;gcst that anything shoulct be done t o upset the del icatc

balance of i n t c rc s t s repescnted by S. 2( 1 ) of thc ' L m Reform (Pcrsonal Ir7jlries)

Act 1948 (82) though it i s not easy t o j u s t i fy thc continuance of a d-ifferent

ru l e uncler thz Fatal Lccidents

Sest sclut ion ~roulc? be t o gcneralisc the conpronise a6optc.d i n the 1948 Lct.

I f t ha t i-?;rCre done the rulc vculd be tha t one half of the value of all bcncfits

receive6 or l i kc ly t o bc received by tlic v i c t i n within tlio first f ivc yzars

have thc nc'Lvantace of introducing a measure o f consistency in to the present

sonewhat chaotic position.

Provisional Conclus ions

Ifidce8, i t can be arguoc? t ha t thc

" noul? be takcn in to acccwt ancl cvorything. clss iGnoroc!. Such a solution wculi!

42 LccorZingLy, our suGScsti.6 ssluti.cn nould $E as follos7s:

(a) Tho e n p l c y x ' s action €c,r l o s s of s ,xviccs should 5c c b o l i s h d but

whcrc an ~ s n ~ l c y u c has b x n off work bccaus~s o f the tor t ious injury

he slioulcl be en t i t l ed t o reccvor il?~.iagcs i n rcspcct of imgcs f o r the

period of zi5sence p i o r t o th3 trial i r respect ive G f whether he has

been paid nages, p n s i o n or sick pay by h i s onployer ( 8 3 ) o r anyone else.

Similarly he shoul5 3c mti t lcc l t o rzcovcr dmagcs i n respect of

paynents f c r aeCical a t tcn t ion i r rcs ixc t ivc of whethcr thcse paymnts (b)

80.

81. See paras.52 ct.scq. infra.

82. Para, 40 su:xa.

Lord Zyrz i n Nicholson V. ChaTmm (1793) 2 ,Hy. B1. a t p.259. - ' '

83. This of course, would not apply i-ihcrc tile acF1oyc.r R ~ S hinself the tortfeasor.

.

have 3ceii boimc by him h i s em2lcycr o r anyone else (84) . _. (c) --, H a r e v e r , ~ i n asssssing h i s itxiages f c r l o s s o f future earnings,

acccunt should be t,akcn o f any payaonts arising out of h i s ' cq loyncn t

vd-iich . . 1ic v i l l o r ;?.ay rcccivo ( c x c q t as yxvicled i n thc Lax Rsforn

(Personal In jur ies ) Act 1948) but nct of paymnts unrelatccl t c h i s .. . . .

nnylcymnt such as procceds o f X I insummx iiolicy IThich hc has talcen

out c r voluntary contributicns tly frioi-ds o r re la t ions.

Similarly, i n assessing dmazzs f o r future modical a t ten t ion acccsmt

shculd bc taken o f m y r igh t erisin,- out of h i s cm.sloyncnt t o havc

thcsc ;;aid but, again, nct cf m y r igh t unrclatcd t o thc. ,en$oymant.

Yhae payimnts uns-cr (a) or (b) have been xade t o the victim by h i s

employer or othcr thirc", party thc.1a-i-r should not provide any &f in i t ? right t c reccupnent f r cn the victim,

out betmen the v i c t i n and the bencfactor, e i t hc r prospactively (e.g.

under concLitions of cmploynsnt) o r rctrospdctivcly a f t e r tile victim hzs

recovcrcd from the tortfcasor.

. .

This should be l e f t t o be wcrkod

The contrast betwcen the rulc eiY!xZiecl i n (a) a n c l (b ) anC tha t i n (c)

and ( 2 ) m y seem i l l o s i c a l but i s , i n our vien, ' j u s t i f i e d on the p o u n d s o f

f,airncss, convcnicnce.and tho snds sought t o bc achievcc?..

vqczr (a). aiid (b) arz, spccial ?LamLgcs .rcprcsentin;;. a CL2finite nsccrtainable su:.

1"1 ru le tha t p p e n t s rcccivcd frm cthcrs do not have t o bc dcductcd wculc!

s inp l i fy thc ackiinistration cf jus t icc an?' shoulc? encoura,Te the mXing o f payxents

by enployers and othors t o the i n j u r d p r t y a t the t i x when he Zost nceds

thcix, i .c. i n the i-ionths o r ye?-rs prcccding thc rmovcry of Cmagcs fron the

tcr t feasor .

dxmgcs and, fron a prac t ica l point of visr., i n a t o t a l l y different position.

Benefits l i kc ly to bi. rcccivcd i n future as an incident o f the v i c t i n ' s cnploy-

ixn t should, we think, ba taken in to account, but nct en t i re ly extraneous

bcncfits f c r which the victim has contractcc?. n i t h k.1 insurance company or *&iicii

he hope3 t o rzceive f r o 3 bcnzfactors. V h t h c r an employinknt pension i s p y a b l e

o b l i p t o r i l y or v o l m t a r i l y should 5e i r r o l a m i t cxcept 9. o f course, tha t th2

. . .

Damages rccovorecl . .

Dmagcs racoverd unZer ( c ) and (d) mx . c s t i m t c s of future gencral . .

84. It is alrcaC-y proviiled tha t the f ac t tha t r?l? injured person night have takcn advaiitagc o f thc f rcc NatFcnal Hsalth Scharnc i s t o ?IS d-isrccardcd:

ncdical o r hosl:ital scrvice f c r i t s norkcrs it i s not sugs2stcd tha t a vorl~er- '~~~o" 'h ,s . taken ac?vmtace of t h i s should be alslc t o . rscavcr' by- way of dar:izg;es what hc would othnrr-risi. have hu-2 t o s T m d ( m y rnorc . t h m sonooiic nho has takcn advantags of t h e frco I h t i m n l Xmlth Service could 20 ' s o ) . %r,.n i f the em;:loyer -:;crc c:Tv2n an inCc;xnC:ciit r igh t of action. clgz1.:.nst the tor t faasor it i s C i f f i cu l t t c see hoi;i, i n p r x t i c e , lic coul6 recover . in these circuristancqs since thx< \.iou:d be v i r tua l ly insupzral~lc d i f f i c u l t i c s i n s q a r a t i n g t h e ccgt incurred i n ras;>cct cf the rartr 'cular ozployce fron thc gcncral cost Gf. toe . s c ~ i c c . charps i n r z s y c - t o f par t icu ler !::&ical scrviccs ;'which.-eculd- be rLdcverdd f o r the bcnofit of thz health smvice ) xhe-thzr K8tional OP Trivatc.

h u ?afGlm (Persmal In jur ies ) !dr, 1948, s.2(4). _ _ ;!hi.re z i fixm L?S i t s ~ r n .. .... .. . . .

.

lLll tha t could 5e dGn2 is t o p x s c r i b c . .... . . . . . . .

.

31

value t o bo placed on the latter w i l l bo fa= lessc T h i s seems- to be the rat t o vhich the courts are tending(85). Ve think that it would be generally

rcxardcd as fa i r that i n assessing general i?m,a;Ccs f o r l o s s of earning c a p c i t y

o r f o r f u b e mdical attcnkion, regard should bc had t o thc extent t o vhich

the v i c t in ' s conditions of cnplopmt u i l l OF m y lead to a mitimtion of h i s

loss.

under an insurance policy talrcn out by the v i c t in TO think it t-lould generally be rcgsrded as unfair (86 ) t o deprivc thc victim of the benefit of his o m

in i t i a t ive i n paying f o r a policy vhich i s not nomally intended as a pure

indcnnity policy but as one giving h in dcf in i tc amounts in the event of cer ta in

i n jurics.

44. rccovcry by the employer ( o r other benefactor), we would not wish t o rulc ou t

the possibi l i ty that , i n agpropriato cases, the court when awarding c?amaC;es

night Give directions o r extrzct an undertaking that appropriate restoration of par t of then should bo made t o the cq loye r , A s we have seen, the courts havc,

occasionally, mde such Circctions whcn they consider that the victim i s under a

noral obligation t o refund(87), In connection with family losscs t o which we

adverb later(BB), vie think tha t such directions or undertakings might be more

widely used.

rarcly that they would be approprictc.

provisional proyosal i s to avoir! tlic n e d t o bring before the court any de ta i l s

of the s t a t e of account between the o q l o y c r and eqloyce o r of the arransementz

which they haw made between thensolvcs. not Bc i n a position t o nake any def in i te dirdxi.cn o r t o extract a binding

undertaking .

Thou& s t r i c t logic nay denand tha t the sane should apply t o n i t icp t ion

In suggesting i n rule ( e ) t ha t thcrc should not be any le& r ight of .

But, i n re la t ion to an cmploycr i7re think tha t it xould only be

One of the nain objccts of our

7 i t h m t these de ta i l s the court w i l l

45 f ina l conclusions we nould be grcat ly helped by v i m s on the various qucstions

raised i n the foregoing paraGm2hs which can 3e s m a r i s c d as follows:

These vicvis m e , h o m v ~ r , only provisional. Before coning t o any

(1) On thc assm9tion tha t thz c q l o y e r ' s action for loss of services

i s abolished, shoulcl anything take its place? (paras.9-22)

Would it in f a c t be l ike ly t o lcad t o a greater readincss t o continue

payment cf nagcs during injury o r t o more gcncrous sick-pay (2)

85.

86.

Subjcct, of course, t o what the House of Lords may decide when Parm v. Clcavcr reaches then: sce para.10, sums. Unless perhaps the insurance company worc subrogatcd t o thc victim's r i s h t s and enzblcd t o recovcr fron the tortfeasor, thereby - hopcfully - leading to a general reduction i n insurance prcniuns.

See Dennis V. L.P.T.B. [+948] 1 A l l E.R. 779, >upra, para.13. 87. 88. See gara.50, infra.

, i f arrmgernents i f cm?loycrs v;rG eivcn a ri&t t o ri'cover such paynents

froii the tcr t fcasor? (parzs.15-21). If some n w rcne6y shoul? Iso provided shoulc? th i s take thc f o m

of zn action by thc ci@oycr t c rccover f r o n the tor i feasor

paynents rmde by tlic crqloycr tha t have rocluccd the darragcs vhich

would OthemisL? have bson rccovarablc by the cmployce? (pzras, 24-29) L l t c r n a t i v c l y , siioul?. tnc! v ic t in 722 y e r n i t t d t o rccover special

daxqcs f r o n the t o r t f a s o r withcut clchcticn o f yayncnts m d e by tine eay-loyar? (imras, 30-40)

Ll t8- . rn~~t ivz ly , slisuld t l c victim 52 pcnlit tcd t o recover without

dccluc-ticn o f such payxnts cxccpt t o the cxtent of onc half the valuo

of such I;apcnts r c c e i v h l e n i th in f ivc yilars cf thc cmse of action?

(3)

(4)

( 5 )

( yara. 41 ) (6) If thz msvcr t o (4) or (5)j;s i n the affirmcltive should the victim

be placcd tmdcr a lcp-1 obl ip- t icn t o rcstorc such pqmcnts t o the

emnylcyer ( o r other ?.xnofactor)? (l3aras.30-40)

If the insner t o qucsticn (3) OS (6) is i n the a f f imc t ive , vhat

should Be the position whcn the d m a g ~ s rocovcred by the cm2loyce arc rcduccd bccausc o f h i s ccntributory ncgligcnce? (paras.25, 35 and 36). Should whatcvcr solution is acoptcd rcp.rdin3 cm2loycrs apply

equally t o bsncfwtors, othcr than the State , who have niti&cd thc

victir3's C I L ~ ~ S C S ? (para.AcI).

(7)

( 8 )

7 OF

CHILD'S SZRVICB

Intro6uction

46 It sccnis convanicnt t o dm1 n i t h s i tuat ions (2) m c l (3) together sincc

they r a i se jyecissly thc sax issuzs. The u t t e r ly ,anachronistic Sasis of th?

action nceds no s t ress ing and no one, vc think, woul?. advocate i t s rctcntion

i n i ts prosent form vhich sonct ims affords 8 remedy t o the husband but ncvzr t o the ~ . i i f e ( ~ ~ ) , On the oth3-i. hmd, tlic action, though anachronistic, i s far from obsolctc and it oftm cnsb1c.s a husb,md t o rzcovcr i n circurnstances

.which jus t ice c lcar ly der-imids that he should -,-There, i n thc present s t z t c cf

the law, i t .would 3e d i f€ i cu l t f o r him t o rccovcr on any o t h a bads.

recent case o f Cutts v. C h u ~ l l e & ~ ~ ) , -a vifo and nothcr o f three l i t t l e boys had

bcen so scricusly injurdd t h a t she wculd hme to spend the r e s t 6f her life i n cm

inst i tut ion.

society and xholly deicivcd of her services i n running the home ancl looking

. .

.In the

As a r c su l t t h e hus?imL had bcen virtually deprived of her

89.

90. [I9671 1 V.L.R. 742.

?3ccept very occasionally fcr Loss of a chi ld 's scmiccs: see psn.7 , n.14, supra.

33

i!

d a f ter the child-ren, He rccovered a conventional f igure of 8200 i n respect

o f inpairment of c o n ~ o r t i u n ( ~ ~ ) and L 5 , O O O for l o s s o f services. ';Se think

it i7ould be nenerallv a z ~ e c d that i t ::.cull hzve Seen outrageous i f hc

been

was

g,

f had no'i

husbanC, w i f , ? , and, perhaps othcr nei.1bers of t'ne houschold! nay recover f o r t h econor.iilc l o s s tha t they suffcr and the expenses they reasonakly incur as a

resu l t o f thc tortious i n . i w of the imcd ia t e v i c t i m This was the unanimou

opin

l o s s of dependency un6-er the Fatal lrccidents Acts i f the Sreadvinner i s l i i l lcdi

and it would be anonalous t o dony such a renedy when h i s su2port i s l o s t 3y a

non-fatal injury,

47 are never rzcoverable except through an action f o r l o s s of services.

It would be an exaggeration t o s u g s s t that i t i s c lear that damages ,$

There i s '4 k%

some authority f o r saying that anyonc yfho i s under a legal obligation t o nainta , . t h e

On t h i s a l ternat ive basis a husband niGht be zblo t o rccovcr ineGical expenses

o r the cost o f hirii1c.r assistznce t o look a f t z r an injured n i f e or infant child, I

and

an infant child-"" - but not yresuimbly for her husband.

t o understand what i s the exact l c p l basis. fcir such action i f it is not an

action f o r l o s s cf services. I f discliargc. of a lcgal oblization affords an

But it i s not easy

a l t c

e q l o y c e , i s l i s b l e t o ;uovide ne2ical a t t d 2 . o n , sick pay o r nages ought t o 5e

( 9 5 ) , but t h i s , as 'c-E havc seen, is not so under thc present able t o rccovcr i

law. Neither t h i s altc-rnative basis, i f i t mists, nor the action f o r l o s s o f .

v U -

I conpensated i n respect o f the l a t t e r i t e n a t l ea s t a n C tha t the award

" . , i o n o f the LX; i k f o r c t C ~ n n i t t e e ' ~ ~ ) . A t present there i s a renedy f o r

b e d i a t z victim nay rccovor fron the tor t feasor the cost o f doing so ,

- a wife, pcrhaps, niTht sonctims xcovc r i n rospect o f cxpeiises incurred f

/ n n \

_ . . - - rnative bas i s , an anployer she, under thc t'C?r:is -of his 'contract with an

Follouing Lmrence v, B i d d l e [I9661 2 Q.B. 504?. In Bcst V.

for loss of consortium as opposed t o scrvic,?s: Ll9521 L.C. a t 728 and 734.

- Pcr Lord Goc!dard i n Best v. Sarnucl Fox & Co. [I9521 A,C. a t 731 .and 7311, Diplock J. i n Kirkhm v. Scu&y Ll958J Q.B. 338 and 3Lr2.

Unlcss a voluxtarily incurrsd Gbligation i s t o 5e distinguished f r o 3 one :.-----a L-- l-l- . _^Y^Y^ 1 1

_ . - . - --

~~ _ _ ~ ~ ~ thc C.A. would appren t ly havc allovral E. claim f o r loss of consort im only vrhen the lcss ~ r a s t o t a l ([I9511 2 K.B. 639) and, i n thc H.L., Lords Fortzr ancl Goddard r-rould apparently have gone s t i l l fur ther - - an6 denied any c l a i g '

Cmnd.2017, paras.19-20. The minority did not dissent on th i s point.

. . - - Cf. Diplock J. i n Kirkharn v. Sou,yhey, supra. . i

. , . . . . . -. . . . . .

34. . . .

' serviccs necessarily e n t i t l o s a husband t o recover a l l the. l o s s which he reascnably incurs (96). Nor, as im have sscn, does Either assist a n i f e when

she has incurred expnsc- as a rcsul't cf her h m b a n d t s injury.

i f she t o o has suffered injury shc can recover f ron the tor t feasor expx3i tura

reasonably incurred 5y othcr clernbers of tl-ic f m i l y t c the extent t ha t tha t

reduces t'ne dzmages t o which shz would otherwise be 'entitled-(97).

Ga;y;;e v. King ( 9 8 ) , Biplock J. held tha t unlass the l31aintiff was unclkr a le@ i i a 5 i l i t y t o incur tlic zxpmses she cculd not recover them by m y of damges.

Lccordingly i n t h a t case the p l a in t i f f x i f a nas held no t cn t i t l cd t o rccover

eqcnses incurred f o r her own m d i c a l a t ten t ion since her husband was legally

l i ab lo t o provic?e hcr with acdical a t ten t icn and i f she c c h t r a c t d f o r it shz

was presumd t o have done s o as her huslsancl's a3er1-b''~).

presumably iaeans that a n i f c can never reccver, evzn i n respect of hcr o?i:M

medical expenses, unless she has actual ly 2aiC .them ou t -o f l icr .cm pocket o r

unless, whcn slic contractcd f o r then, shc s2ccif ical ly ple2ged her oy;n credi t .

It nay be tha t

But i n

If t h i s i s correct i t

48. wards which r e f l e c t tlic i r o - p c b o f f inanc ia l loss on other iaen3crs of thc f a i l y y

they do not allrays clo so an2 Zrequontly them is no l ega l basis f o r the rccovcq.

The Bar C ~ u n c i l , i n t h c i r evidence i n 1961 t o the L a v &fora Comit tcc , drew

a t ten t ion t o the unhap-pincss awn,- pract i t ionors i n the f i e l d of perscnal

i n ju r i e s l i t i p t i o n caused by t h o p x s e n t unccrtaiiity and by the "Dickensian

for12 vihich t h e i r plcadincs assum" i n cn a t teapt t o provide a lega l basis for a

recovery. The a3ol i t ion o f the action f c r l o s s o f servicos v~ould renove onc

Sasis (and perhaps the cnly l c p l o m ) on vhich such recovery is sometincs

Hence although defcndcmts often concedo tha t the ; i laintiff can rcccvor

pcssiblc.

found . It soens c lea r tha t CL ns-it an2 uorz s a t i s l ac t c ry legal basis clust 3c

TVTCS of Family Losses

49. between the varicus types of l o s s which n e r h r s of n f m i l y m y sustain i f one

nember is injurcd. The borderline between the vSricus types nay not always he crys ta l c l ea r 5ut , as we see it , thcre e re i n e f f x t s i x reasonably d i s t i n c t

types, a.

Before proceecling fur ther i t nay ;IC helpful t o nftenpt t o d i s t i n p i s h

96. See9 for exanplc, %irkham v. Bougheg, sugra, vrhcre i t zas heXL tha t the husband vas not cn t i t l cd tcj rccovcr l x s of mm1in.p lincurred becausc he reasona3ly stayed i n En@md t o lock aft;.r h i s injursd n i f e instoncl. o f

8 th April 1967. But contrast XcR'eill 7. ' i - 1 9 5 6 m . R . 888.

Scc Schncider v. Zisovitch 1-19601 2 &.E. 430 t7here the .p l a in t i f f v i f c under- t'ook t o TCpiy her brothcr-in-l~i:~' s expndi turc i n bririging her ancl her husband's body Sack f roc l I?rmicc where the accident occurrd.

returning t o h i s job i n Africa. And cp. TkDonnell v. Stovms, The Tines c

.

97.

98. [I9611 I Q.B. 188. _ _ 99. This seem t o conf l ic t with Rces v. Hu:'.hcs [I9fk6] K.B. 517, C.L. -

(i) Payments in mitigation. F i r s t there are payments which other m e n b e

o f the family nake t o t he i r injured colleague t o mitigate the damage

which he would otherwise incur.

a man t o maintain h i s son during the time when the l a t t e r i s not

receiving wages, o r f o r medical a t tent ion i n respect of h i s injured wife

Obvious examples are payments made by

, o r children. Unlike losses considered under the following heads, these

losses are not adZitiona1 t o those suffered by tlie immediate victim; they

a re merely borne i n i t i a l l y by another instead of being incurred'by tlie

injured party.

(ii) Hosp i t a l v i s i t s . Secondly there are the costs of v i s i t s t o the injured

m a n ' s sickbed. These costs inay include both out-of-Focket expenses i n

fa res and,, soinetimes, loss of earnings resu l t ing from time o f f work t o

make hospi ta l v i s i t s .

Other pecuniary losses not based on dependency. Thirdly there are types

o f pecuniary l o s s which f low not from the f a c t tha t other members of the

family are dependent on the injured party (on which see ( iv) below) but

from the need t o lool: a f t e r the injured party or t o secure the'performancc

of the domestic ro le hi ther to performd by hin.

earnings ;nay be suffered by a n i f e who has t o nurse her injured husband,

o r by an elder daughter r:ho has t o look a f t e r the younger children uhi lc

the mother i s incapacitated, o r expenditure nay 'oe incurred by a husbanc!

-,-rho has t o engage a houseiceeper t o rcplace h i s injured nife .

Economic l o s s e s based on dapendency.

y;here one neri'oz oi tlic f m i l y Is ?j-holly o r partially de'pendent on

ailother <mCL aul".?ers bccausi. the in jur ies t o that o thc r diminish

h i s available rcsomccs.

a l lwancc of 22 a -mck and h i s -,iifc a drcss alloi,;ance of Z70 a xonth

may f ind hircself unable t o do s o - d ~ i l c 0v.t of n o r k as a r e su l t of the injury.

but nay instead r e su l t i n a reduction i n the future economic prospccts

of the dependant. If it bc the case tha t ar, eclucation a t Ztoii gives a young nan th3 b c s t prospects, he sill suffer futv-re econonic l o s s i f his

fa ther loses h i s j o b as a r 2 s u L t of an injury and i n consequence has t o

renove his boy frolil =ton aid send k i x t o t he local comprehensive schozl.

Similarly if thc cxpcctation of li€s of the 11readi;linncr i s dininished :its

a result of the iiijury, tliou:h 2iis depciidartts may not suffer in-ncdiatdly

they arc l i ke ly t o lose th i r source of f inancial support earlier thai?

they o thcr~i i sc v~oulcl, .

(iii)

For examples l o s s of

( iv ) ~ourt lnly tliere i s tlie situatiofi

A mai? --.rho has p a X his tcena,c;d chi ld m

- - _ _ _ . . - Losses under t h i s head t r i l l not n x e s s a r i l y bs of def in i te su.m

.. . . . .

(v) Loss of ser-ficEs conpanionship and -;iarcntal care. Iii contrast with tlic . . . . . . . . .

foregoing types, v,-5nerc! the ' loss .;.-!as csscn+,ially cf an economic charactcr,

vie now come t o situations i n nhich the l o s s , tiiough rea l , i s not o f a . .

, . , .

36.

i 1 . f

f inanc ia l character,

servant or housekeeper n i l1 be engagsd t o take her place.

the husband has suffered an econonic l o s s f a l l i n g under head (iii).

More proba73ly, hovcver, ths other monbcrs o f thc family v i l l r a l l y round

and undertake nore of the fan i ly chores.

no def in i te f inanc ia l loss, i s borne by tner?. who are deprived of the care o f on2 or otlicr of t h e i r parents normally

do not suf fe r scononiczlly thcrsby but nevcrthclcss suf fe r nhat most

people vould rcgard as a grievous loss. Solat iur? for grief .

o f the Panily t r i l l suffar when another is injurcd.

cn t i rc ly non-economic but i s , as -;;e see it, distinguishable from the

type of l o s s rcfcrrcd t o i n (v).

d i f f i c u l t t o dccide Tvhcthcr ther? is a l o s s undcr head (v) as vrcll a s

under head (v i ) .

suf fe r l o s s under both heads and, irhere the parent i s the breadwilmer,

under head (iv) also.

there 2s a loss under head ( v i ) but no l o s s under head ( iv ) - but

ra ther EL gain - and probably no loss under h a d (v) e i the r , unless th2

chi ld rendored doncstic services.

If a a i f e and mother is injured it nay be tha t a /3

I n tha t evcnt

. I n tha t event, a hurdeiz, but

S in i l a r ly infant childrcn

(vi) Finally there i s the gr izf and :-lorry which nenbers This again is

Ia s o m cases, hoxever, it may be

'lherc a parant is injured infant children c lear ly

'Therc, hvirever, a dependent ch i ld i s injured

The questions v!iich f i rs t have t o be detcrmincd are whether any, and i f so which,

of these types of lossos should bc rc.covcrablc, axi by ~7hom.

(i) Payments i n Tfitigation

50 T e have alrzady dea l t with p p c c n t s i n mitigation of the i m c d i a t c v i c t i n ' s damage nhcn considering the posit ion of the e q l o y e r , In our vie17,

uhichcver solution is adoptcd resarding payxents by an cmploycr should apply

equally t o payncnts by my b a x f a c t o r , vhethcr o r D o t a ncmbcr- of the family.

Hence i f the subrogation solution(') were adopted it should, as i n the I s r a e l i

be nad-2 t o extend t o rayrncnts rnade o r benefits conferred by

naibers of the fax i ly and others i n s o far as thcss diminished the danagcs v;i?ich

&uld o t h c n ~ i s e be rocoverable by the imisdiate victim fron the tor t fcasor .

The sane principle should ap2ly i f , instead, the solution which vrc favoured vxc.

adapted of disrcsarding such payrqcnts and taenefits i n asscssing the darnages

recoverable by the vict i r i f r o n the t ~ r t f c a s o r ' ~ ) . A s 'iio have scen,payments and

benefi ts conferred by bencfactors, as opposcd t o enployers, s c m t o be dis-

regarded under the prcsent ld4)? and i n o u r view tha t practice should contirx,?.

1. See paras.25-25, nupra.

2. See paras.27-28, supra.

3. See paras. 30-45. 4. See paras.10 and 47.

37

Similarly we nould favour, cvsn more strongly, the view tha t no lega l r igh

recouprncnt should be given t o the nenibers of t he faii i ly who aade the payncnts;

essent ia l ly the danages recovered frori the tor t fcasor should be regarded as

replenishing thc " f m i l y pool'' out of which the payments nere nade, However, t o avoid the r i s k of futurc f a l i l y discord 'i;o think tha t here i t riay often be

appropriate for the court ?;hen axardiiig damges t o give directions o r t o obtain an undadaking regarding recoupxnt o f o the r nambers of the family (5) ,

51 the remzining types o f l o s s , f o r these a rz additional t o tne l o s s suffared by

the immediate victim and, i f tlicy a r o t o be recovcrablc a t a l l , w i l l have t o bs

claimed scparately, though not necessarily i n a separate

add t o the t o t a l dmagas payable by the tortfcasor.

carefully (a) whcther tlioy should bc recovmablz a t a l l , and (b) i f s o , by c r

on behalf of vrhich mnbei-s of the family.

An squally straightforward solution, hovrevsr, i s not poss ibh as regards

and m i l l

Hencct one has t o consider

( i i ) Hospital v i s i t s

52.

victim's sick-bcd i s essent ia l ly the type of loss i-Jhich should be recoverable;

t h i s was cer ta inly the v i w of tk~ Law Reform Corx~i. t tce(~). out (8 ) , tho cost i s not nccossarily l i n i t e d t o fa res t o and from the hospital;

i f a husband has t o lose a day's work am? earnings, th2 cost t o him ought a l s o t o

bz rccovcrablc.. Nor should recovery be depcndent on vrhcthcr the v i s i t of thc

re la t ive has hastencd the victirn's res torat ion t o health.

rccovcry under x i t iga t ion o f damgc i s obviously i q r a c t i c a b l e . On the other

hand some l i m i t imst be placed on the extent t o vliich the tor t fcasor ought t o

pay; thc victim's cousin i r ? Australia can hardly c x p x t 2 subsidised t r i p t o London.

reasonablcncss ourat obviously t o be an c s s m t i a l cr i ter ion.

t o us, the qusstion is not solely i2wther it was rmsonable for the r d a t i v e t o

maks the vis i ts but also mhetlisr it i s reasonable t o expect the tor t fcasor t o

pay f o r then. regular, tine-consuming, and thcr2forz potent ia l ly cost ly , visi ts by a husband,

vrife, son o r daughter. It night, thereforc , be desirable t o linit rccovery t o

tlic reasonable cost ( b o t h i n out-of-pocket expenses and l o s s of earnings) of

such v i s l t s as ncre t o be ckpccted i n thc natural course of cvcnts having rcgai-6

t o the extent of t'ne v i c t i n ' s in jur ias and his far.iily circunstances.

It s e c m t o bz generally accoptcd tha t the cost o f v is i ts t o tlic I

A s alrcady pointcd

Any a t tegpt t o subsuzc.

The Law Reform Connittee spoka of "reasonable visits t o hospital" and

But , as it seems

Casual v i s i t s by a d is tan t ru la t ivc a re very different fron

I

5. C f . as rcgards e :q loycrs , para.44, supra.

6. See paras,80-84, infra , f o r suzgastions rzg-ardiiig linkage of claims.

$ Alternatively one night h a v e it t o jud ic ia l discret ion by providing f o r

recovery of such costs as the court cmsidered it raasonable f o r the tor t fcasor

t o bear.

53 be r e s t r i c t ed t o prescribed fiierr,bers of the f m i l y .

eliminate or rc6uce the lized t o dcfinc the type of v i s i t s ; any visi ts by the

prescribed senbers night bc regarded as rcascnable -. s o long as the cost v~as not cxcessivz (e .g . a son's t r i p f ron Australia t o v i s i t h i s fa ther with a broken

ankle). The d i f f i cu l ty , homver9 i s t o f ind a ne.aningful prescription.

nould suppose tha t v i s i t s by a nenbzr of t'nc sane household ought t o be jncl-adcd

even though the v i s i t o r i s not a legal re la t ion but, f o r exmplc, tha "coniion-lax

viifc".

l i ves on h i s o m should not be deprived of v i s i t o r s t o h i s sickbed) - unless it can be argued that costs should be recoverablz only i f they have deplctod the

household pool.

from a fianc6e o r fianc6; s o s t engagsd couples arc i n the process of building -a2

A second and re la tcd qucstion i s xhethsr c la ins undcr t h i s head should If t h i s were done it night

Onc

But ambers o f the household ~rould see2 t o be too narrow (a nan who

But even on the l a t t e r basis it V70Uld be harsh t o exclude v i s i t 9

a cormon pool f o r use a f t c r marriage.

most eagcrly avaitcd o f a l l , it would, nc think, be lancntablc i f they v m x excluded.

&id since thesc v i s i t s a re , perhaps, tlic!

54 nould be v i r tua l ly irnpossiblc t o dcfinz any classes i n a nay which nould not

yroduce anonalies. I n sor-ie casCs the only l i l x l y v i s i t o r s wculd be parentss

children and spouses.

night be f r o n cld f r iends I h O -i:crc not rcla-Lions at a l l .

vc should favour sone such foi-iula as tha t suggestcd i n para..52, v i th no

r e s t r i c t ion on the c lass of i"ricn6s and re la t ions ,

en t i t l ed t o ri.ccivo v i s i t s and, il" thc visitors care t o c l a h , the rcasonable

costs involvcd slioul~d be rccoverablc from tlic parson who has injurcd him. I n

the case of occasional v i s i t s by fr icnds o r dis tant re la t ions it i s unlikely the t

the cost nould be othar than t r i v i a l or tha t thc vis i tor wouk! wish t o clairn.

We should, ho;.icver, vrelcome vic-\7s on th i s . ..

(iii)

55 In separating t h i s head f r o m hoad (iv) we a r z sseking t o dist inguish

types of econonic loss nhich f l o v , r,ot f r o n the f ac t t h e t other nmbers o f t h s

f m i l y are dependants o f the injurad par ty (head iv) , but fron the f a c t t h a t

the incapacity. of the injurcd party causes 2.nothcr r.ieI;iber of thn f an i ly c i tnc r

t o give up.renuncrative employmcnt o r t o cnga-": sonsone elsc t o perform the

ro le h i ther to carried o u t by the injured party.

tha t dependency c la ins should be t rea ted different ly f ron the l a t t e r c la ins bu i

marely . . th,at . it is arguable tha t they gh.oulcl.

Tho fac t i s , 172 bclicve, tha t circumstances d i f f c r so great ly tha t it

I n cthers , par t icu lar ly n i t h the a&, tlii. only v i s i t s On balance, thereforc,

An injurcd man should- be

Other pecuniary losscs not based on dependency

-_ de are not saying definitel3-

_ _ :de have not thought i t necessary

39.

0 t o dis t inguish between giving up en-ployment and engaging another; i t appears 'Go

us tha t they clear ly ought t o be t reated i n tht. sane way.

law they a re t reated different ly; a wife vdio gives up her job t o look a f t e r

her injured husband cannot recover from tile tor t feasor (though the husband may

be able t o i f he pzys her as B nurse o r 9 concaivcbly, on the Sasis tha t the

services have mitigated h i s damge

but a husband who i s deprived of tine donestic services o f his wife o r daughter

can recover ti?e cost of replacing them Qr an action f o r l o s s , of szrvices. The

whole object of abolishing the action f o r l o s s of services and replacing it by

something be t t e r i s t o remove anomalous dis t inct ions of t h i s s o r t .

56 . recovera'ole from the tor t feasor except t o the extent that they were incurred G S

a reasonable mems of meeting the s i tua t ion a r i s ing from the injury t o the

immediate victim.

her husband instead of employing someoiie e lse t o do so a t a tenth of the COS^,

the court would obviously not regzrd her viiole l o s s of income as flowing

reaSGnably from the t o r t .

the chef a t the S ~ o y t o cook h i s meals i n place o f h i s injured nife .

once again, i f the course taken i-ms reasonabls i n the circuqstances the extent

of the rxove ry should not be measurad by tha cxtent t o which it mitigated the

damage of the imxd ia t c victim.

Under the present

ts> j by obviating the need t o pay f o r a nurse

$

Uncler this head a l so , i t seems c lear that losses should not be

If a wife threw up a Sl0,OOO per m u m job i n order t o nursc

And it mould take the same view i f a husband cngagd

But,

I' ,

57. suggest, no need i n t h i s caee t o l i m i t rccovery ni thin,any prescribed c l a s s of

re la t ives .

up h i s o r her j,ob i n order t o loolr a f t a r the imicdiatc victim o r t o discharge t h domcstic dut ies h i t h m t o undertaken by liin it cannot matter, as it seems to us9

what re la t ionship, i f m y , tlia p r s o n vho s teps into the breach bears t o the

victim. It zould appear t o be wholly unreasonable t o say tha t a wife can be

compensated but not an adult s i s t c r .

s tep in to the breach, s e can see no rzason why a fr iend should be precluded fron

doing s o except a t her 0w.n expnsc.

ergaged it cannot make any diffarance ;;rho cngages the nurse o r housekeeper and

makes himself

a id (v i ) , with non-pecuriiaiy losses and the victim of thc t o r t nay a c l l 5e essent ia l , but we cannot see i t s

rclevance i n the present context.

l i v )

58 Bccidents Acts are primarily conccrnc-d, namel-y losscs flowing from deperdency.

So long as t h i s "reasonablsness" t e s t i s l a i Z down them i s , -ue '

If it i s a rcasonabla rasponsc t o the emergency f o r someone t o give

And i f there i s no re la t ion prepared t o

Similarly i f a nurse o r a housekeeper i s

.rcsponsiblz for paying her. . When i-ie come"to ded lp under 'heads (v) a legal relationship between the c l a i m a t

Economic losses bzsed on dependency

Tie non come -to the type o f losses 1:;itli which claims under the Fatal

9. See para.47. 40

4P Once again ne a r o concerned with s t r i c t l y economic losses but, as already

pointed out'lo) depend on an estimzte o f the l o s s of future -prospects. Undcr the present

lan, i f the breadwinner i s k i l l cd , action may be brought on behalf of h i s dependants t o recovsr thc cconomic l o s s i-hich tncy suf fer thereby.

Fatal Accidents Acts vcre or iginal ly introduced (1') ail causes of action ves tx l

i n the victim of a - t o r t aljatcd n i t h h i s dcatli - ac t io personalis a o r i t u r cu i

persona - thus rendering tnc plight Gf dcpi.ndLats grme indecd.

of act ion affcrded the dependants isy the Acts i n cases of nrongful death h'as survived the abol i t ion o f thc ac t io personalis rule (I2) s o that today tho

v i c t i n ' s pcrsonal rcpresantativqs can r2covGr both the loss he suffered and,

on behalf o f the dependants o f a wide but prescribed c lass , any additional

economic l o s s tha t they have suffered. Since m y ben i f i t s received by the

dependw-ts as a r e su l t o f tlic death have t o bc sct-off against t l ioir clainis,

these w i l l be dininishGd t o thc: c x t m t that the depcndants succeed t o those

dmagcs as beneficiaries undcr thc dccmsed's v i l l o r intestacy.

cer ta in ly not rsndercd Fatal Accidents Act claims ot iosc, for i n inany cases

they n x d not nsccssarily be imedia te ly quantified but may

When the

But the r igh t

But t h i s has

the l o s s t o the depondmts w i l l be additional t o , a d g m a t c r than, the loss t o the deceased.

i s incapacitatcd instaad of bcing j;illcd outri;%t, but t h c i r claims t h m arc nct

a t present recognised by the lair cxccpt when m action f o r l o s s o f scrviccs i c

possiblc, i .e . i n pract icc only whdn a n i f a o r daughtcr i s injured. I n rAost

casm t h i s c m bc j u s t i f i e d on thc bas i s t ha t , i f the i.miediatc victim rccovzm I dcmages f o r l o s s OP future carnings, t h i s rill m a l l e him t o continue t o rnaintzid

h i s d q e n d m t s vho, accordingly, nzi thcr m e d nor should be givcn -an indepcndsnt

claim. since t h i s would lcad t o doubld recovzry.

so .

Dcpcndmts m y equally suffc-r additional loss whcn the vict i l l

This, homvor , i s not alviays

I f the breadvinner's zxpzctation of l i f s has bccn rzduccd, ne i thzr the

noninal sum avarded f o r tha t nor the dmagcs f o r loss of cmninss during h i s

cxgected l i f c can lcad t o adequatz compensation f o r h i s dependants.

a son vrho had t o bo taken avay from 3ton as 8 r c su l t of thd f a the r ' s injury bc

adequately compensated by an axrard o€ darmgGs t o the f a the r f ive years l a t e r .

Tlhilc s teps would lmve t o be talren, as they arc under thc Fatal Accidents Acts,

t o avoid double recovery, i f dependants ar? t o bc adequately compensated th'ey

need a remedy l;rhethdr the injury of the breadwinner be fa ta l o r not.

Xor w i l l

59. Hence t o prcvide a r e a d y t o depsndants which vould operate i n the

smr? way vhcncver there nas a srongful- injury mhathm o r not it caused.death

would, it seens t o us , bc an zninently desirablc ra t iona l i sa t ion of the lai-f.

For t h e present -m assum tha t thc rcnedy should be r e s t r i c t ed , as claims u n d x

10. See para.49, supra.

11.

12.

Lord Campbsll' s Act 1846. By the Lm-: ilicfom (liiscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934.

41

the Fa ta l Accidcnts Acts a re t reated as restr ic ted(13) , t o s t r i c t l y econo e

.

l o s ses as opposed t o t'nosc considered under haacls (v) and. (vi) .

60. of a prescribed c lass of re la t ives .

tha t it is d i f f i c u l t t o sec why any prcscripticfi is nceded and why rccovery

should not be based simply on the f a c t of dc:xxidcncy rather than on dependency

plus a.lega1 relat icnship crnbracing almost every l i lco ly typc of dependant. The

main classes o f li!;cly d-ei)cndmts VAO arc excluded arc "cornnon l a w " husl;iXds or wives (who clear ly ham a prc.ssnt d-eyenclcncy)

xaintenance (i-rhich n i l 1 normally ccasc on the ex-husband' s death) , and f i a n c h s

(viho arc l i ke ly t o h w e a fui;:im depmdency).

ought t o be includcd.

or i n par t someone who does not hapi3cn t o be a blood re la t ion o r l ega l ly adsptcc?.

( for example sorneona over whom tlic victim has accopted . . the obligations o f

guardianship) we do not see xhy tha t clepcnc?.arL should be deziied a claim.

Specifying a re la t ionship has, perhaps, fu l f i l l e d cne desirable purpose i n

that i t has mabled the courts t o hold tha t one cznnot under the Fatal Sccicicnts

hcts claim f c r a l o s s f lozing so1;tly froxi a comiercial association'''). It ~ o u l d , honcvcr, be possibls t o axcludc. t'nat typc of dependency without having

t o spccify'prcscribcd classcs o f r d a t i c n s .

Under the Fa ta l Accidcnts ActsO clains c m be brought only on' behalf (14) This, ho-;rever, has not7 beconc so n ide

divorced wives being paid

It satlms t o us tha t these classes

Xorecver i f th2 victim ims i n f a c t maintaining i n t7hOlC

63. r c s t r i c t cd t o dcfinitc. econoxic losses, ire arc- inclincd t o think tha t them

should not be a fixed l i s t of rc ln t ivcs but tha t tho r igh t of rzcovcry should

depend on the f ac t of dependence i n cnch cas3.

point on which 1:ie i,iouli! velcom viows.

stronzly tha t it should bc the smc. i 7 l ~ t h c r the injury in f l i c t zd by the t o r t -

feasor leads t o dcath or merely t o injury.

narrOiilcr than the present l i s t under thi. Patal Lccidents Lets cancl a strong

C ~ S C can be made for widening it s o as t o avoid the prcscnt cxclusion of the

comon law spouse .

Hence, i f claims, nhether f o r f a t a l o r non-fatal cascs, i-mx t o be

This, hclj-cvcr, is another

If them i s t o be 2 fixcd l i s t rre f e c l

It could. therefore hardly be

(16)

_ _ -

13. See para.63, iilfra.

14. It includes spouses children and gan6children (lawful, i l l e g i t i n a t c , stq o r adoptcd) , parents (ii?cluding step-parents) , pani lparmts s i s t e r s , aunts, uuclcs a i d t h c i r issue: E t a 1 k c i d e n t s Acts I846 and 1959.

he12 tha t a husband could nct c h i n f c r the loss of h i s wife as a pro- fess ional dancing partner. K.B. 257 :i-herc dmz~gos i n coraparabls circumtancas wcr2 rzcovc-red i n an action f o r loss o f services.

16. A t present the childrcn of partner i n thqt union.

and brothcrs

15. Burgess v. Florence Kightingalc Z o s p i t a l 1119551 I Q.B. 349, where it 7 ' * J U S

Contrast TImkin v. Scala Thcodroine Co. [ I 9477

i l l i c i t union can recovcr but not t l id o t k r

@ (v) Loss of scrviccs, companionship and parsntal care

62 .. f i n m c i a l character.

bc? recoverable under thc action f c r l o s s of sarviccs m d , on the other hand,

losses which unGer thc present lav; m o pobably not mcoverable a t all, The

principzl i l l u s t r a t i o n o f the first t y p of loss i s where a wife i s injurcd.

In these circknst-mces, as YTS !iavc scen, the husband can a t prcscnt r@covcr

from the tor t fcasor danagcs designed t o compcnsatct him for the l o s s cf tlic x i f z ' s

sorvicos and compmionship (consortium).

her dorilcstic dut ias while shc is inczyacitated he v i l l hmc suffcrcd a definitc-

f inancial l o s s vhich ail1 be rcccvzrabh,

members of the f,Wily n i l1 r a l l y rouni! and unclertakz thc doracstic Cutics fornc.rly

perforncd by the a i f c .

services and cofisortiura, n i l 1 recovm only

ncighbourhood of i2200(17).,

prcscnt nothing i s recoverablc, 8rc xhew the wife i s k i l l c d

husband is injured, or i s k i l l ed m d the srife su€fars no d i rcc t pecuniary loss thcreby"') , vhcrc young childrcn (not rcndcring scrviccs t o t he i r parents) are k i l l ed o r sllffer no pecuniary l o s s but 3re &cprived, tmporar i ly o r pem&ently, of

parental care.

Ye now COLIC t o various types of loss vrhich arc not of a de f in i t e

They includc, cn tke one haid, lossos rrhich nay at p re smt

If ha engaagcs a housckcepsr t o perfor:

Mcrc probably, hwevcr, thc other

In tha t cyent the husband, i n an action for l o s s o f

a rb i t ra ry conventional sum i n VIE

/ I l l u s t r a t ions of the sscond s i tuz t ion , i n Ylhich at (18) , where a

or nhcro parcnts a m k i l l ed o r injurcd and the childrcn

63 suffer a l o s s nhich i s somthing norz tangible t'n,m grief alone.

an6- mother i s killed o r injured it nay bc: tha t she w i l l bc rcplacsd by a paid

h ous eke e pe r (2'); but i f therc i s Q Laughter OK GilC;u,nl? ths probabili ty is t h r t

she T r i l l pcrforn tha t m l e and. tha t nc d i r x t pecuniary loss v i l l bc sufforcd by

thc family.

there i s an ac t ion - fo r l o s s of scrviccs it scms thzt Eothing is at prcscnt

Ls v c scc i t , i n a l l t.hcse cases thc husband, i-rifc, yarents or chi ldrdi

Yherc a n i fo

Fcvr -;;ill deny that t h a c is a loss. Yc-t sxccpt i n cases i n ljlhich

recoverable in respcct o f it. In one cas?? it i s true, the court cxprcssed a willingness t o zriard- clamages i n rcspcct of such a loss. That case,

- - 17. 18.

19.

Cf. Cutts v. C!imlcy, supra. prca.46. fin action for loss of scrviccs c m n o t bc brought if thit immediate victir! i s !tilled-: Bilriliralty ConnissionGrs v. S.S. i acr ika L19171 A,C. 38, H.L. Thc: z i f e czmiot SUC for l o s s cf the liusband's conscr t im (w V. Sanucl Fcx & CO. [I9521 A.C. 716, :I.E..) and claims under thc Fatal Accidents .Let arc l i n i t c d t o pxuniary los s : Fovcc v.. B r o m (1964) 108 So1.J. 219.

In these circunstanccs t l ic i r parcnts nomally suffer no pccuniaiy l o s s an2 may (e.g. i€ the chi ld i s k i l lcd) gain f inancial ly since thsy nc longer have t o maintain the chi ld ,

20.

Preston v. Hunting A i r Transport(22). arose out of an a i r accident I- and t u r n ~ ~ o n

the interpretat ion o f the word "damage" i n the larsax Convention wnich i s

incorporated i n t o our domestic lavr by (nov) the Carriage by A i r Act 1961.

widowed mother o f two children aged 3 and 4 years was k i l l ed in an a i r crash.

Ormrod J. said ( 2 3 ) tha t the question was nhether the daqage t o them:

R

"should be calcclated purely on - h a t may be estimated as the f inancial l o s s which tliese infants had sustained, OS whether it should be calcul- ated on the broader bas i s of the l o s s which they inevitably must have sustained beyond the ac tua l f inaxcial l c s s by the f ac t tha t they l o s t t h e i r mother as young children aged some three or four years, who were a t the time of her death already deprived or" a father".

IIe concluded that:

"I must take into account, i n calculat ing any sm vhich should be auarded t o them, something more than the purely fincmcial loss and award some sm - a sum extremely d i f f i c u l t t o a r r ive a t - for the loss they have sustained by reascm of the f ac t t h a t they have l o s t the care,of t h e i r nother at an age when probably they needed it most".

I n the l i g h t of these remarks, it comes as something o f E shock t o observe thz t

a l l t ha t tlie h-fo o f tkea vere auarded i n r e s y x t of the non-ficaicial element

in t h e i r l o s s vjas f400. Act the court has refused t o fol lov Ormod J's decision and has ruled tha t only

I n a sitbsequent case (24) under the Fatal Accidents

s t r i c t f inancial l o s s is recovcr~~3le.

64. c lear , chatever the ru l e , it should be thc? smx for f a t a l and , for ncn-fatal

in jur ies . The present s i tua t ion , iil irhich non-pecuniary losses arc never

recoverable i n cases of f a t a l i n ju r i e s , but nay be recoverable i n other cases if,

but only i f , the re la t ionshiy riith the ii.wediato v i c t i n is such tha t an action

f o r l o s s of services i s available, seem jndcfemible.

65 is:-

Should such dm-iagcs be lega l ly recoverable? One thing seems t o be

(25)

k s -;re see i t , the case €or alloning non-pecuniary l o s s t o be recovered

(i)

(ii)

The loss, though d i f f i c u l t t o qumtifJ, i s a real 2nd serious one,

A t present damages a re recovcrable i n sonc cases and it would be d i f f i -

c u l t t o j u s t i f y a reform of the lair nhicli vrould r e su l t i n t h c i r nc

being recoverablc.

22. [I19561 I Q.S. 454. . I

23 , A t p.461.

24 . . - Pevec v. Brown (1964) 108 So1.J. 219.

25. Preston v. Ilunting Air Tramport, supra para.63, a decision t o the con- ( It is. ilot rsalljr possiblc t r a ry

t o argue tha t the y;ords o f tile .aTsp>;i Convention and thc E t d Iiccidznts Act arc suff ic ic i i t ly 2-iffcrent t o j u s t i fy an award or" non-pecuniary 1 under the foimcr but not undcr the l a t t e r .

niust br; regarded as of dubious authorit;. .--

44.

%e case against recovery is:-

(a) The law should not take account o f losses which are impossible t o

calculate.

Danages, i f allowed, could only be assessed as arbi t rary conventional

sums - as indeed they are a t present i n the fen cases where they are recoverable ( 2 6 ) and conventional sunis are inconsistent with a con-

pensatory theory o f damages. If non-pecuniary l o s s suffered by infant children nere recoverable,

insuperable pract ical diff i cu l t i e s nould arise. The tortfeasor ( o r

h i s insurers) nould never be safe i n s e t t l i n g n i t h a v i c t in vino had

infant children.

suffered some non-pecmiary l o s s and xithou% the approval of the

court t h e i r claims could not be disposed of.

Before fur ther e q l o r i n g 'these pros and cons it -saeIils desira3le t o mention . t l ' ~ d

(b)

(c) .

The l a t t e r might, and indeed generally would, have

f i n a l type of l o s s (gr ie f ) ahich ra i ses sirailar problems.

Iv) Solatiun fo r gr ie f

66. dearest are k i l led o r iiljured.

Znglish law has ever opcnly recognised as reccverable.

i n the Civi l Lau counJGrics9 including Scotland.

dravm, i n cases of de l i c t s causing dcath, Isstwen patrimonial loss and'a s o l a t i m f o r grief and d is t ress , and hus3mds and nives a16 ascendcmts and descendants can claim for both(27).

Scottish concept and coupled it with a lcg is la t ivs prescription of the sum -to ?E

marded.

case of the deeth of z child the court may award the parents a sm not exceediri;;

2.500 and i n ths casc of the dca-tli o f a' spouse nay avard t'ne o&cr .a sum not

excecding $700 by nay of solatim- f o r the suffcring caused by the death.

home t h i s has rccently been- talcon up by ths Relmblic o f Ireland.

of the Civi l LiaSi l i ty Act 1961 (no.41) the court is en t i t l ed t o award

dependants m t i t l e d t o elaimsfoi pcculriary l o s s i n f a t a l accident cases

- .. . . .. - . . I

. ..

Obviously psople are l ike ly t o suf fs r p i c f vlien the i r nearest and

This, ho?-rever, is not a type or" l o s s -irhich

The position i s diff2rei:t

In Scotland a dis t inct ion i s

South Australia has by s ta tu te adopted the

By ss.23A, B and- C of tile ?Jrongs Act 1936, introduce& i n 1940, i n +A;:

KeamT ( 2 8 ) By s.47

reasonable comTmsation f o r nciitcl d i s t r e s s not zxcceding Z1,OOO i n all. This -;{as originally introcluccd on Lzn experincntal basis f o r three years 9

( 2 9 )

but since it vas thought t o nor!; s s t i s fac tor i ly , the time-li-nit- has nou-bccn

26.

27. See D.M. rialkcr: Tho L w of Dclict i n Scotland, pp.722-733. 28. Sce subs . ( l ) ( a ) ( i i ) and (5 ) .

29. See ibid. su'os.l(d).

Approxinitcly S20O per head: g . Cutts v. C:iwnlcy Lm?l! Preston V, Huntin,.; A i r Transport, supra. . .

F 45

( 3 0 ) renovccl

- - 30. By tha Civil L iab i l i ty (ilncnfdicnt) Act 1964, s.6 an6 Sch. Scc on thcsc

s x t i o n s , IhiSht: Sofile dspscts of Dar .18 .g~~ under the Civil Liabi l i ty dcts 1961 mcl 1964; (1966) 1 I r i sh J u r i s t (N.S . ) 35 a t 50-58. I.c. .;inc;l the LZJ k f o r r c (islisccll3iiocu.s Provisims) -Ict 1934 abolish22 ths rule t h i t pcrsonal actions do not surviv2.

I .

. [1952! A.C. 716, I3.L. a t 728 an2 730.

46.

1 I L

m

t

E

m C i n t'nc s m e czuss bf acticn loss ox 2amige cndcr .my of these hezcls could properly 5e taken intc account, though often the main emphasis might bo on the value cf tlw scrviccs cr assistance nliicl? tlic husba2 .had l o s t . .... I can sce no sign of my diffcrclzcc. i n q m l i t y betwecn h i s r ight t o h2r ass i s tmce 2nd h is r igh t t o licr society, aid indeer? it would be d i f f i - cu l t t o say ivherc i n fac t assistance ends ant! society begins, either today o r i n the LIid-Zle Ages.. MO dmbt hcr scrviccs ,ancl nssistxrco had an zdditional value becausc hcr cmfor t and- socicty vent with thsn. I do not think that conscrtiuiil .i.ias m abstraction: it scms tc nc re thcr t o be a iimc fo r what tlic husbznC enjcys by vir tue C j f a bundla of r ights , soim ha$clly capablc: of Frccisz definition".

Nany wou.lii t1iin.k that t h i s view cf tiw l m r dis2lays sound common sensc and t:Lat

f a r f ron abolishing ths husband's r igh t of rccovcry a similar r ight shmld be

confsrred on the x i f e vhen she is mongfully dcprivcd of her liusbm2's assistancc

m d society,

nashing-up Tie should be t h ~ l a s t t G Ccny that this enhanccs our value; bit BC

should net l i lcc t o think that t h i s roprcsGnts our only v a h s .

h a d ado3tion of t h i s solut icn r;ould cer ta inly hzve ths noi5ts of sin;>licity,

avoiding QS it aould the incvitablc coq l i ca t ions vrhich vrould a r i se i f my

of Solutions 3-5 ncrc adopted.

As husbands vho brinc hone the pay packet and hclF ;.rith the

On thc Other

69. Solution 2

i n both fa tc l md non-fatal cases t c pscuniary l o s s bu t - to subst i tute fo r the

personal rq rc scn ta t ivas ' prcsont right i n f a t a l C ~ S C S t c rccover d-anages for non-pecuniary loss, c2 rule t ha t th:! tor t fezsor shouX pay a fixed sun i n t o thc

cs ta tc of thc 6 x ~ z s c d .

i n thc recent casc cf F q r l o r V. Yorkshire Z l x t r i c i t g Board

of the 6 i i f i c u l t i c s of asecssing Smagcs for loss c.C c2pictation of l i f e , he

Ths second possibi l i ty noulC' again bc t o r c s t r i c t recovery

Tlfiis so1uti.m i s brsctl on the suggestion o€ Lord Dcvliri

, There, spcS;iiis . (35)

said ' ( 36 ) :-

"TO arr ive z t a f i g u r z .... i s a .mt ta r f G r cor,li)rcraiso and not for juAicia1 Cetzrmination ...a . It'vrould, I think, bc 3. gri.3-t iqxovcncn'c i f tha h?zC; of clzmagc q.-mx abolishcc? m 2 rcplaccd by L? s h t r t L e t of Parliancnt f ix ing a sui table sun which a v;ron$lccr whosd zct has cmscc? SLcath should pay in t6 ths cs ta te of the Scc~ased."

Thc cffcct of t h i s aoul6 bc that t hose nho succm?~d- t o thc dr ,ceasd 's Zststz

V J O U ~ ~ bc ~ p c n l y CcmpisatcC f o r %lie non-;:ccuni>iy l o s s which they s u f f s r d un~'-ir

heals (v) md (v i ) .

inst2,ad of t o indivicual ncr~~~rs OS thbz f m i l y (as un2cr sclutions 3 , 4 an<- 5) tbc pract ical Ci f f icu l t ics Gf sGttl ing acticns, a s p x i a l l y vh>yz infants vcr3

involvd , nml6 bc avoided.

3y proviCing t'nat pzyment shoulC bs r?dc to thc cs ta tc

Gn'thc. other hand thz Pixcd suz night not i n f a c t

enure f c r the bcncfit o f those rxxbcrs of the fclliily t7ho had suffcrcd the not-

pccuniaiy l o s s ; tha c?.ccaasod uight have 1 c f t a -,?ill vhich cut out h i s 7;;ife an?-

children o r , 03 intcstacy, 3-11 nisht g~ t o thc i i i f o and no,tbing t c thc childrxi.

Unless those disinhcrited resorted t o prccccc3ngs under thc Inkcrit,mcc ( F m i l y

35. 36. A t p.1128. S t i l l r2orc recently t h i s lras supportcil by Donalclson J. i n

[I9671 2 'J.L.3. 1-1-14, H,L.

Barkcr v. -,Jilloughby [I9681 2 7?L.B. 1138.

47.

37. 38.

39.

40

q\i Solution 4' The f o u r t h possibi l i ty nould be t o adapt solution 3 s o that there vould be,no fixed statutory m a x i m t o thc sun that could be amarcled t o rs la t ivos. In othcr nords a rxnber of the faxily who could prcvc +;hat he hcd .suffered non-pecunizry l o s s

teaporary o r pazxment l o g s of thc compny m-d cmfor t o f tnc nifc , husband,

chil6 or parcnt

dwiagcs the court thought rcasonabl,?.

the personal raprcsentativcs' r ight t o sue for non-pxuniary loss suffered by

thc dcccased..

vhcther r i d e r hcad (v) or (vi) bccause o f

Gr bcccuse of grief, would- bc cn t i t l ed t o recover whatever

This could be coupled with abcl i t ion of

72 Solut_lon_5 c?isallovr, as a t prcscnt, my soletiwin foi- gr icf .

Tlie f i n a l solution nould be t o aScpt soh-Lion 4 but t o

In other words, c?arnages under I I

hoad (v) vroulcl ho rccovcrablc but not thcsc unhr head (vi) .

73. preference f o r one o r othcr o f thcse solutions.

allowing non-pecuniery loss t o be rccoverablc nould be a strong one mcrc it nct

for objcction (c) i n para,65, where thcro arc infant chil2rcn.'

hcmA9 those countries which allow c l a i m for solatiun do not appear t o have

found tha t infznt claimcats causi3 insupcrablc ?S.fficultios. ?]or do tnoy 'in

%&and whorc tlisy have pecuniary claims uncler the Fatal Accidents Act, cml! if,

as suggestcl!

i s arguable that t'nc d i f f i cu l t i e s noul i aot b~ unsui%icuntc?t;le.

that i n fac t thero v;ould be Liuch di f f icu l ty i f non-pbcuniary l o s s could. bc talcon

into ccnsideraticn only vlxn t'nere i s a l s o

T J ~ rcgard as a grmc: diff ' iGdty i s the l7ossibility of a claim f o r non-pecuniary

less nlonc.

mist suf fe r t o son:: cxtcnt.

the court approvcc? thc sc t t lcn in t on bchalf of the children.

A t prosent 57c find ourselves u n a b l e t o express firm o r U E U I ~ ~ O U S

As wc sec it, the csse f o r

On the other

I, 2 similar procedure ne ro a b p t c d i n non-fatal cases it Wc. do not think

c la in for pcuniary los s . 7hat . . .

In ovcry casc: wherc a. parcnt i s killcc? or injured infant' chilclrei?

Tlw vrrongdoor could never s c t t l e the c h i n unless

74 8 Thmc a m 9 as v c see it, thrac Tossible aiisvrcrs t o t h i s par t icular

2roblem.. One i s t o aGopt s d u t i c n 2 as a rcsul t of which thcre mould be no

iii2ividual c l a i m but ncrely a paymnt t o the es ta te i n the went of death.

It has zlrca2y been pcintcd out tha t t h i s could p rohce somewhat ,unfair resul ts .

HIoreov,?r i t would g e m that non-?ccuniary l o s s would- 52 recoverable in f a t a l

41. Paras.8O-84. 32, Sce paras.54, 57, GO an< 61. . L

49

claim for p e c m i a , a : i s no need t o prcscribe the class o f re la t ives who can

a prescription of a c lass couli! bc t o t a l l y avoided.

anomalous resul ts ,

But it would give r i s e t o 1 The f a i l y couW suf fcr substantial non-pecunia-qr l o s s

r i thout any pecunicry l o s s at all; 'ifhy should the f o r m r l o s s not be rccovxcble? 4 In sonc cams th2 qucstion vrhathcr Tccuniary o r non-pecunizry l o s s i s suffsroc'L

nay depmd s o l d y on nhctnm sozoone i s eaployed t o stanil i n for the inmcdiatc

victim o r xhethcr the family r a l l y roun?.. The t h i r l possiblc ansvcr i s t o prc-

scribc a narrow class cf rc la t ivcs cntitlcc! t o c la in for non-pccuniary l o s s ai5- t o excludc chiUrcn, If tha t ncrc done clainants night e i thcr bc limited t o Tarents and sTouses o r extcnded t o granciparents or won col la turals o r other

acult incabers of thc sane houschol6. -

If non-pxuniary losses arc t o bc rccov

able on t h e i r o m the prescription o f a class of re la t ives en t i t l ed t o c la in

cannot easily be avoidcd.

75 Having regard t o the above considerations mc sha l l welcome v i m s on

suggest ion,

76 i n any f G r n the c h i n shoul2 be pcrsonal t o the nenbcr of the family concornec?

ml shoutd not be mforceablc by h i s personal reprcsmtatives on h i s death.

Thc opposite r e su l t woulC be cven more objzctionable than the ;)resent survival

of the victim's own claix for. non-pccuniary l o s s an2 coulc? resu l t i n unjus-tifiz,!>

me arc a l l agreed tha t if rocovcry of non-pmuniary l o s s i s pernittzcl

double recovery * (43) . Form of :',etion

77 0

be obtained:

Thcrc are four possible nethozs r:.hzreby recovery by tho faiiily coulC

(i) By allo7;,7in: the irAur,?<-iatc victim, o r h i s pcrsonal r e x c s m t z t i v c s ~ t o

fc7nily conccrncd. f (ii) BY inc?.ivi?-ual c l a i m by cach I n c n b ~ r o f thc f a i i l .y conccmcd;

(iv) ~y F- represcntativc a c t i m 5y one nealxr of thc f m i l y on behalf of

hiins2lf ancl 211 cthzrs k-.ving c l a im.

73. ap2roisriate t o

rccovery of losscs a r i s ing from benefactions t o the victim. though GvPn ht-l-c vji'

In our vievr ncthcc': (i) i s , as already

44. Para.50.

50

q h o u l d f m o u r us2 by the court of 2- pcsicr t o give dircctions o r t o obtain under- Thcr-. takings.

are obvious objcctions t o allowing other people's clains , vrhich night be sub-

s t an t i a l , t o dcyni! sn t i rc ly on tho i n i t i a t i v e of the imacdiate v ic t in , or t o

leaving restoration o f suns recovorocl x t t ize ly t o h i s scnsc cf aoral obligation.

Moreover, in thc absence o f a dcf ini te 1?pl obligatior? t o hmd. cvcr danagcs rcccvcrcd, personal rzpr2scntetiv:s night be in an cnbarrassing position, a d

t'nerc tirculd be a l i a b i l i t y t o cs ta ta Cuty on the vholo of thz net daigagcs

recover& i f the in-.ied-iatc v i c t h before handing over tho shares of othcrs.

But, i n our viev1, t h i s v~oulC not b? a;JproTriatc i n othcr cases.

79. t o deal ssparatcly viith cach nznber of thc fanily ;-rith m a c t u d o r potential

c la in and coulc! not bc surc that hc hacl achievoc!. a full and f i n a l s c t t l m e n t

unless hc ncgotiato? vrith e v q y possiblc! claimant.

would no 2ou'J-t; bc pcssible t o povicle by rulos f o r the actions by the various

clairnants t o be consoli2atcG 3ut it would be d i f f i cu l t t o precluCc cach partjr

f r o 3 being s e p r a t e l y rcgrescntcd with incrcase6 costs.

Tlic obvious objzction t o aethod (ii) i s that thc tor t fcasor would hmv.

If actions werc brought it

80. We are therefore inclincc? t o fm(xr a systen of claimlinkage. One nzy

of achieving t h i s mu1C lx mctliod (iii) based on thc present practice unaer the

Fatal Accidents Act. U n d e r t h i s only one action c m be Sroudit,nornally i n thz

nme Gf the dcccasd l s personal rcprcscntativcs giving f u l l particulars of the

persons f o r vlicsa Scncfit the action i s brcjught (45) ( i n practice t h i s is ccupled

with an acticn by the personal r2;xzsmtativcs t o ri'c3vcr danages it0 vdiich the

deceased mas Forscnslly entitled) .. I f , lio-nvcr, tlicrs i s no p r s o n a l r e p x -

sentativc o r i f hs does not comznci' an action within s i x months, all ' o r my

o f thc rclativos c n t i k l d t o thc bcnePit of thc Lct nay sue on lsohalf of all clainant s ( A r 6 ) .

only ono action vJculcl be a l l o m d on behalf of all thc ' re la t ives and nomally t h i s

woulc! be brought by the in-xdiatc v i c t i n an< bo ccui?lcG with h i s gcrsonal action.

I f , hovever, he did not Sring Lm action on t h e i r bclialf v i th in 2 reasonablc tin;.

my re la t ive ~ m u l d be entitluG t o do s o on behalf of hinsclf ,an2 thc others.,

Ve suggest, howarer, t h a t s i x months i s t z s short an2 that t m l v e nonths night

'ua bct tcr . We sha l l vrclcorne vicvrs on this .

.

I f analogous provisions a p ~ l i c c l i n tho casc of non-fatal injury9

I

81 wculc?. n a h sct t lcnents of c la ins unduly S i f f icu l t ; I n i t i a l l y tho tcr t foasos

would deal only with the in,cCiato victim and coulc! ?idcc hicl Lm dffcr o f a lw?p

ern t o inclucle the pcrsonal c la in of the v i c t in CL tlic c la ins 'of the r c l a t ivm.

We C;o not think tha t t o f o l l a r the pattcrn o f thc Fatal kcbidsn'cs Acts

45. Fatal LcciCcnts IE,ct 1 ~ 4 6 ~ s.2.

"* m i t a t i o n cf Actions, cttc.) Lct 1954, s.3. Ibici, s.3 as awndcc! by FJtal Lccidcnts Act 1864, s.1 and Law Ecfom

@ It would then be up t o the victim t o consult n i t h the relat ives t o deci2.e n

the lump SUQ shoulC be accq ted and, i f so , how it w ~ s t o be ap2ortionc.d among

the various claimnts .

secure the court S approval (47) but t h i s swns unavcieablo i f the in t c rc s t s of infants arc t o bc properly i3rokcted.

vrould keep control over the amount rccovsrcd u n t i l the i n f m t s attaincd f u l l

age (48). But sincc the procdurs i n t h i s r c 3 d L TES s i rq l i f i ed and cliea$cncc'L as

2. resu l t of s.19 of thc ;Ldninistration of Justice Lct 7965 vie do not think tha t

it can ba rcgar6M any longer as uichly cwdxrsone. If thc inxxliatc v i c t in

dclayxl i n taking procmCings m d these mrs inst i tutod 3y another re la t ive ,

the tor t fcasor vroulC!. thcn have t o d e a l with thc l a t t c r SO f a r as conccrns'thc

relatives' c h i n s , 3ut t h i s i s unlikcly t o occur often.

82, The principal objection t o t h i s solution i s tha t a systcnrrhich morlcs

vhsn one already has fic?uci,arics ( the ?axonal rcpresontativex) , night not work

i n non-fatal C ~ S C S where the imxcdiate victim, not previously i n a fi?.uciary

position, ~iou1C fins himself conducting negotiations and actions on behalf of

othms as n e l l as liixsclf.

others. The fac t t ha t the imiecliate victirr! night object p r c s m t s no insupcrablc

Gifficulty, f o r as ne havc suzps tc? , hc should be unclcr no conpulsion t o pursue the other 's c l a i m and i f hc dict not another rc la t ive should 5e ent i t led t o do so,

It may 5c o b j c c t d that them might tlicn be disagreement on the choice of

rc la t ive ('I9). Homvcr no choice sr)c!-ns t o be requisite. UndGr the Fatal

,':cci&nts Act IS64 on default 5y the pxsonal re2rcscntativcs the? action can bc

Srought "by o r in the rime o r n a x s of all o r any of the persons ( i f more thax m c

f o r whose benefit such acticn woulcl havc Isem brought" i f Brought by the personal

rsprcsentativc.

,m?., as we unGerstanC it, if one s ta r ted ?roccec?ings thc others could api3ly to be

joined.

tlic x t i o n , and, p x h q s , should allply cvm i f h2 did.

her

If i n f m t s were involvecl it nould be necessary t o

' And nherd inf,mts vere concerned the court

This night nct be acceptablc t o him o r t o those

t

Hence a l l clairnmts could be jo in t p l a in t i f f s i f thoy wished,

ii similar rule could ap2ly whencver thc imcciiatc v i c t in d id not bring

83. sui ta3lc f o r t?. rcimcsentativc sction u n C m B.S.C. 0.15, r.12, aTpear t o have any obvious a2vantagecs over nethod (iii) and t o d f o r f ron tha

Finally, mcthoc? ( iv ) wou12 bc t o t roat the relat ivcs ' c l a i m as

This 2oes r.ot

47. R.S.C. 0.80, rr.11 &, 12. 165, .H.L.

See 3 ic t z v. Lmnig Chemical L t d . , [1967]'3 V.L.R.

48. IbiC, ~ 1 3 , 49. This'does not seex t o hav? causcL any d i f f icu l ty i n cases unGer th2 Fatat

iLccidca-ts Act, 5ut thcrc s u i t othomisc than by the personal. reprcsmtativos i s a rare occurrence since the :iersonal rc>rcscntativcs are--cT&rly under 3 i"uty t o yursue the clairn on bzhalf of. tho cs ta te an$, i n p a c t i c c , equally ragard thenselves as under an obligation t o p r s u e the clains un6cr the Fatal ,kci<ents k t , . .

@!fisadvantage that t w o separate proceedings would always be needed, one on behdl" of the inmediate victim and the other on behalf of the family. two actions would be heard together but this would not wholly obviate the disadvantages regarding costs and settling claims. preceding paragraph, the other relatives were entitled to apply to be joined even when the iumediate victim was suing (thus not equating him with a personal representative in a fatal claim), methoZL (iii) seems simpler and more advantageous than a representative action.

84

No doubt the

If, as suggested in the

Accordingly, our inclination is to favour rnethod (iii) but we shall welcome views on this.

Effect of contributory negligence

85 victim was guilty of contributory negligence the claims of the relations should

be reduced proportionately. As already pointed the Law Reform Committee considered that this should apply throughout. suggested that a different view should be adopted where the sole question is how the damages recoverable by the immediate victim should be divided betwcen him and a bencfa~tor(~~', this does not apply in the present context since the damagss recoverable by the relatives incrcase the total damages recoverable f r o m the tortfeasor. Clearly the same rule should apply whether o r not the injury to the iramediate victim is fatal and it seems clear to us that tha rule

A s in claims under the Fatal Accidents Act(50), if the immediate

Although we have

laid down in the Fatal Accidents Act is right; part of the loss flows not from

the tort but from tha victim's own negligence and the tortfeasor should not be required to pay for this.

Provisional Conclusions

%6. Accordingly OUT provisional proposals under these heads zre as f o l l o ~ j I S ~

(a) The husband's action for loss of the wife's socicty and services or of a child's service should be abolished. In the inmediate victim's claim f o r damages against tlic tortfeasor, papents or other benefits recsivcd by him from relatives or other benefactors should be ignored(53), but the court should have power in appropriate cases to give directions or obtain undertakings rcmrding restoration to the benefactor (pzrzs .4-1 and 50).

(b)

50. 51. Para.25, supra.

52. See para. 35, supra. 53. This is probably the position under the present l w z see para.10 and, as

La17 Refom (Contributory ITcgligence) Act 1745, s.l(4).

regards clains under the Fatal Accidents Acts, Bzirlinson v. Babcock & 3ilcox [I9671 1 B.L.R. 481.

53

(c) .Other pecuniary losscs suffered by members of the family as a res of the injury t o the v i c t in should be recoverablc whether o r not the

injur ies are f a t a l (paras.52-61).

Recovery should extend t o the reasonable cost of such v i s i t s t o the

victimls hospital cr sick-bed as w r e naturally to be expected in thc

circunstances (paras. 52-54). C l a i m a n t s should not be r c s t r i c t cd t o a prescribed class of re la t ives

and dependants; anyone who has suffersd pecuniary l o s s which flowed

from o r was a reasonable conszquencc of the wrongful injury o r death

(d)

( e )

should be en t i t l ed t o recovcr (paras.53, 54, 57 and 60).

Tie hme, as yc t , fomcd no concluded view on vihethcr non-pecuniary

losses should be rccoverablc and, if s o , t o what extent and. on what

basis (paras .69-75) -.

If non-pccuniary l o s s i s t o be recovcrablc it T r i l l be necessary to

prescribe thc class of rc la t ivcs 'md dqm-dants en t i t l cd t o claim,

unless e i thzr (a) non-pccuniary losses arc res t r ic ted t o f a t a l cases

and arc cornpcnsated by a paynent of a f ixed sum t o the deceased's

es ta tc o r (b) claims arc l imited t o those who liavc a l s o suffered

pscmiary l o s s ,

infant children ( para ,74) . If non-pecuniary losses of rolat ives and dcperdants are t o be reccvixabl

on any basis, the iwcd ia t c vict i r i ' s claim f o r non-pecuniary l o s s i n

f a t a l cases shculd not survive f o r the benefit of h i s es ta te (paras.

70-72). pecuniary l o s s survive for the benefit of, h i s es ta te (para.76).

The best solution to the problem o f reducing multiplicity o f claims

(paras.77-84) night be t o apply t o non-fzital cases a s M l a r proeedure

t o that under the Fatal Accidents Act whcrcby only one action c m be

brought on behalf of a l l those en t i t l ed to claim.

be brought by the . imcdia te v i c t i n but mhcre he delayed unreasonably

any or a l l claimaxts should be en t i t l cd t o i n s t i t u t e one action on

behalf cf all thosc en t i t l ed (paras. 80-82).

The inriediztc victim's contributory negligence should reduce the

mount recoverable. (pars, 85)

(f)

(g)

If a c lass is prcscribcd it should probably cxclude

(h)

Nor should the claim of tlic ra la t ive o r dependant for non-

(j)

This should nomally

(k)

87 T

"roplenishnent of the family pool'! and ''claim linkage!' which we put fomard i n

our ea r l i e r and l i n i t cd round of consultation,

objections vhich werz ma&c t o these proposals, and in par t icular the obJections

that the rang2 of re la t ives t o be protcctcd was t 9 o narrowly.defined and that

i t vras ynsatisfactory t o deny then any lc-1 entitlement. We also thinls tha t

As w i l l be sccn, these proposals re ta in the basic concepts of

But they attempt t o meet thc

54.

' cdr nen sugzestions mould h a w the dcsirable consqucnce of rmoving u i v ~ ~ r . .. the present arbi t rary dis t inct ions betc;can f a t a l and- non-fatal injur ics . T c

would emThasize, howevcr, %hat o u r via;s c?rc rncrcly provisional md, i n some

cases unfomsd9 and tha t 'ocforo coning t o a f i n a l conclusion YE inv i te viei-?s

on t h c l qucstions raiscd in thc forcgoing pnragx%phs vhich can be smnarised a:,

follows

(1) If a husband's r ight t o dsiqagcs f o r l o s s of h i s *i?ifS's society and

services o r loss of a chi ld 's scrvico i s t o bo abolishcd, i s it acccptcd tha t a ncn rcnedy sus t take i ts p l ~ z c ? ? (paras.46-48). Is it accepted tha t i n so far as rclat ivzs have nade paymnts o r con-

ferred bcn,f i ts nhich mitigate the dmagc: of the ir-mediato victir-1,

such payicnts o r Scncfits sheuld cofitinue t o be disrcgzrded i n

asscssing h i s d,magc?s and that the victim should not be undcr any legcl oblipption t o rcstoro t o thc ra la t ivos unless the court c thcmise

directs? (para. 50). A s regards o thm losscs incurred by nembcrs of thg family i s it accc-ptzd

that pecuniary losses of the classes rcfcrrcd t o i n para,49( ii)-( iv )

should be rccovcrable? (paras. 52-61). A s rcbwd.s these pecuniary losscs i s it acczptcd that claimants ( in

c i thc r f e t a l o r non-fatil cases) shculd. not be res t r ic ted t o a

If sc : - ..

(2)

( 3 }

(4)

dcfini tc ly przscribed class? (paras. 53, 54, 57, 60 and 61 1. As r e g a d s non-pccunizry losscs vhich 01 the ipossible solutions se t

out i n paras.68-72 i s the bost? (paras.73-75). IS it accaptsd tha t i f non-gccuniary f m i l y l ~ s s e s were rccoverziblc

i n fatal cases, Vac d;c,xxccl'.s OVM claim f o r non-pecuniary l o s s should:

not survive f o r thc bcncfit o f h i s cstatc-? (parzs.70-72). ,

( 5 )

(6)

( 7 ) ' Is i t a c c q t e d tha t , i f non-pccuniary f m i l y losses m r e rxovzrable ,

they should nct survivz for the benefit of tlis claimant's es ta te?

( para. 76) A s r e s r d s procc&lrc, i s it ecceptod tha t , o f tlic four possible mcthods

s e t out i n yara.77, ncthod (iii), a p n c m l i s e d procedure analogous

t o tha t a t prcsent opcrating under ths Tatal Accidents Act is the best'?

(paras.79-84). ent i t led . t o apply t o be juincd as p l a in t i f f s i n an action by the. ixicdiate srictin (par2.82) and a f t e r vrhat per iod o f delay by -the

imiediatc victim should they be cn t i t l ed t o bring proceedings

indcpendcntly of hin? ( para. 80) . Should the m o u l t s rccovcrablc by the f m i l y bo reduced proportionatdy

t o any ccntributory i ic~l igcncc o f the inqediatc victim? (para.85).

(8) ,

If so , should the othcr ncnbors of the family be

.

( 9 ) .

55

(4) SEDrrCTION

88,

damages f o r thc seduction o f his m m r r i ? d infw-t daughtm (cr othcr f c m l e servant) should be abolishzd (54) and not rcplaccd by any other cause o f action

vcstcd i n hin.

aff i l ia t ion lavJ and yroccdure cnabling the umarricd : Jo tha to recover mafntcnac

from thc putativc fathcr.

i r ~ d i c q t e d ( ~ ~ ) , that a thoroughgoing revian of this branch of the law is needed

and sone steps in tha t dircction are alroaliy bcing taken. any r igh t of action by ths fa ther o r =other of the g i r l cppears t o us to be

We havc no doubt thz t ti?e fa ther ' s ( o r othcr master's) r igh t t o

This does not mcan tha t v~e arc sa t i s f i ed n i t h the present

Cn th? contrary, BC. are convinced, as T J ~ have already

But the retention of

indcfensiblc (56) . ) ZNTIC2:ENT OR HiUBOURIfiTG OF S3VXqTS

89

yurposcs, extinct.

inducing a breach o f contract (58) o r f o r conspiracy o r intiniaation(59) and tlicsc adcquatcly' provide such rezcdy as i s No one has suggested tha t t h n o

i s any valid reason why t h i s zlspcct of thc action f o r l o s s of scrvices shouid

not rcceive i t s quietus a.nG BC 5.3 recorru;md.

A s alraedy pcintcd out (57) t h i s ty2e of action is , f o r a l l p r m t i c a l

In nodern tiixs i t s place has Secn takcii by the actions f o r

54.

55.

56.

Already legal a id i s clcnicd i n t'nis typc of action: Legal Bit: and i'dvicc Act 1949, 1st . Sch. Part 11, I ( c ) . Sec 0 7 . n Published '?orking Paycr tio.12 on Prool: of Paternity and our Second ihnual. Beport (Law Con. Bc.12) pra .80.

3 e are unable t o shara thc opinion expressed by the Council o f the La:;r Society tha t thcsc vicvrs "cut a t ths vzry r o o t of f aa i ly s t a b i l i t y and that i t i s necessary t o rc ta in SOSO r igh t of action i n respect-of seduction i n ordcr t o express the ;Tublic disapprobation of such conduct. To rsnove a l l s~xli r igh ts i s t o opcn tho door t G any man i7ho night othcrrrise be detcrrcd fror.1 innoral conduct 3y the Ifnowledge of the r i sk he might be running if such a r igh t existed". tha t an action vested i n tha fa ther i n the evcnt of h i s daughter's pregmxtlcjr has proved a n ineffective sanction a p i i i s t pc-mari ta l intercourss.

The Council do not disputa

58. 1.3. the rule i n Lurilcg V. (1853) 2 E & E,.216.

59.

60.

Roolccs V. Buncrd [I7641 A.C. 1129, I-I.L.; StratforSi v. Lindley cl9651 L . C . 269, 3.L. and sce Track Disputes Act 1965. They wmld not ncccssarily cover the harbouring of a sorvant lcnom~ t o have broken his contract , but such an action n i l 1 f a i l i f the eriyloyec nould not i n my event have .rcturncd t o h i s employer: Jones Bros. (Hunstcmton) Ltd. v. Stcvsns cl9551 1 Q.B. 275. aspect of thc action i s velueless, for "it is hard t o see how a pla in t i f f could- ever rcbut t h i s , espscially i n a s t a t e o f f u l l enploynent". T o r t s (14th €23.) p.501n.

Hcnco t h i s rosidual .

Salnond:

) EN’I’ICDABTT OF SPOUSE OR ITJFAI”T DAUGHTER

90 the analogous action f o r scduction m d w e hzvd no hcsi ta t ion i n rccomending

that it should fall .

enticencnt of a spousc has; though actions are infrcqucnt they do occur. 3 s

already pointod out (61) they are closely rclatcd t o clains f o r damages for

adultcry - the o ld action for cr ininal conversation nov superseded by a

statutory rcne(ly(62). W’c dealt nith th i s , an6 incidontally with the action

for ent icamnt , i n our Vor’:ing Paper on Financial Belief i n Natrinonial

Causes ( 6 3 ) where ne cxprcsscd a prcforoncc f o r 9-bolishing both actions

Bt icenent of an infant daughter should obviously stand or f a l l vit’nin

It harLly seem to have m y independent l i f e . However,

(64) . 91

Paper suggest that public opinion rioulrl favour the abolit ion of the action for enticement and of any claim for da~ iag~s f o r adultary not coupled with a peti t icr ,

f o r divorce o r judicial separation, but that there would be objection t o a

t o t a l a3olit ion o f c la ins f o r &,amages f o r adultery. Public opinion, it is said, m i l l dcamd that daraagcs be recovcsable i n divorce procceclings fron th2

vicalthy s d u c c r of ;?, poor a m ’ s wife.

92 Our prcferzncc is s t i l l f o r t o t a l abolition of both actions, but NC

are awaiting fur thcr views on thc proposed abolit ion of daaagzs f o r adultery.

In the nemtine we h ~ v s no hesi ta t ion i n proposing thc t o t a l abolit ion o f thc

action f o r enticement.

Comnents s o far recciwd on our provisional poposals i n that Working

61. Sugra, para.7(6). 62. 63. 64. b t para.442.

irovr Matrimonial Causes b t lS6!j9 s.41.

Published Vorlring Papcr No. 9, paras. 128-1 42.

57